No. 3--08--0442
_________________________________________________________________
Filed November 5, 2008
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
A.D., 2008
In re D.D., JR.; S.D.; and C.D.,) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of the 9th Judicial Circuit,
Minors ) Hancock County, Illinois,
)
(The People of the State of )
Illinois, )
)
Petitioner-Appellee, ) No. 03--JA--4
)
v. )
)
D.D., Sr., and A.D., ) Honorable
) Patricia A. Walton,
Respondents-Appellants). ) Judge, Presiding.
_________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the Opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________________________
Respondent D.D., Sr., is the father of the minors at issue in
this case, and respondent A.D. is the mother. The trial court
found both respondents unfit to care for their minor children and
terminated their parental rights. The minors met the definition of
"Indian Child[ren]" under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act
(ICWA); thus, the ICWA governed this case. On appeal, the
respondents argue that the State did not meet its burden under
sections §1912(d) and (f) of the ICWA (25 U.S.C.A. 1912(d), (f)
(West 2001)), and that the mother's trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance. We affirm.
FACTS
On October 29, 2003, the State filed a juvenile petition
alleging that D.D., Jr. (D.D.), born June 6, 1997; S.D., born July
31, 1999; and C.D., born November 20, 2002, were neglected.
Specifically, the petition alleged that the minors were subjected
to an injurious environment because: (1) they were "filthy"; (2)
C.D. consumed Pepsi from a bottle with old formula stuck to the
inside of the bottle; and (3) D.D. and S.D. were scarred from a
candle they played with while the respondents slept. The petition
further alleged that the minors were abused and at substantial risk
of physical harm because, among other reasons, the father threw a
coffee mug at D.D. that hit him in the face. The court held a
shelter care hearing that day and placed temporary custody of the
minors with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
Since the minors met the definition of "Indian Child[ren]" under
the ICWA (25 U.S.C.A. §1911(b) (West 2001)), the Cherokee Nation
filed a notice of intervention pursuant to section 1911(c) of that
act (25 U.S.C.A. §1911(c) (West 2001)). Howard Paden, a
representative of the Cherokee Nation, indicated that the Cherokee
Tribe would not seek to remove the children from their non-Indian
foster placement, but he would monitor the progress of the
respondents and minors.
A family service provider filed a social history report in
2
October 2003. She reported that the respondents' household
functioned in "total chaos"; the respondents did not possess "any
parenting skills"; and the minors would not "have the opportunity
to function in a normal environment as long as [they were]
subjected to the verbal abuse" of the respondents. Jerri
Niewohner, a DCFS caseworker, also noted that the respondents did
not understand the harm they were causing the minors by physical
and verbal abuse or why the instant juvenile case was opened.
On February 25, 2004, the respondents admitted the allegations
of neglect in the juvenile petition, and the father also admitted
to abuse by throwing a coffee mug at D.D.'s face. At the March 24,
2004, dispositional hearing, the court found that the minors were
neglected and abused, made them wards of the court, and granted
guardianship to DCFS. The court ordered the respondents to
complete their client service plan tasks.
Niewohner filed a client service plan that included the
following tasks: (1) attend parenting classes to learn to
discipline the minors without corporal punishment, to interact with
the minors in a nurturing way, and to understand D.D.'s special
needs of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and posttraumatic
stress disorder; (2) learn budgeting and homemaking skills,
including appropriate hygiene and nutrition for the minors and
creating a nonhazardous home environment; (3) individual therapy
for each respondent, including mental health treatment for the
3
mother and anger management and domestic violence classes for the
father; (4) visit the minors; and (5) implement what they learned.
Additionally, D.D. and the respondents also received instruction
from Screening Assessment and Support Services (SASS) and Chaddock
theraplay to learn how to interact with each other, given D.D.'s
special needs. The respondents also received psychiatric therapy
with Dr. Michael Schneider starting in 2006.
By February 3, 2005, the respondents had made sufficient
progress on their tasks to have the minors returned home. To
assist with this adjustment, Addus Health Care provided in-home
homemaking services five days per week. On the other two days per
week, a DCFS worker provided in-home assistance. However, on
September 20, 2005, the minors were placed back into foster care
because the respondents could not control the childrens' behavior,
and D.D.'s psychiatrist believed he would be in "grave danger" were
he to return to the respondents' home.
On May 31, 2007, the State filed a petition to terminate the
respondents' parental rights. The State alleged that the
respondents were unfit parents because, among other allegations,
they failed to make: (1) reasonable efforts to correct the
conditions that were the basis for removal of the minors (750 ILCS
50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2002)); and (2) reasonable progress toward the
return home of the minors during any nine month period after the
adjudication of neglect and abuse (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(iii) (West
4
2002)).
The court conducted fitness hearings from August 1 to October
31, 2007. Schneider testified as an expert in psychology. He had
provided family therapy for the respondents since February 2006.
In his opinion, the respondents showed the "potential for being
able to provide at least minimally adequate parenting skills for
[S.D. and C.D.] in the presence of an adequate support network."
Schneider felt that the respondents had made slow but steady
progress on improving their parenting skills through counseling.
However, he did not believe they had progressed to a point where
they could benefit from specialized training to parent a child with
D.D.'s special needs. Schneider felt that when the respondents
were not rewarded for their progress, such as through additional
visitation, they would become frustrated and less engaged.
Schneider testified that he viewed the case through the eyes of the
respondents, not in the best interest of the minors.
Martha Butler provided parenting classes to the respondents.
She testified that the respondents had completed a parenting
course. However, because Butler felt the respondents needed
additional instruction, she had provided in-home training, which
was not "customary[.]" Overall, Butler felt that the respondents
had made some efforts, but they had struggled to implement the
techniques they had learned, and they needed to continue working on
most areas of parenting.
5
Butler, as well as family support specialists Sheryl Hopping
and Fran Estes, attended visits between the respondents and the
minors. Both Hopping and Estes observed the children were left
unsupervised and without life jackets while playing near a lake.
Both also observed inconsistent parenting techniques and a failure
to implement what they were taught in parenting classes. For
example, the respondents continued to scream at the minors instead
of using consequences or "time-out" as a form of discipline. Estes
observed the father strike his youngest daughter, A.D., in a
struggle over juice.1 Butler, Hopping and Estes each opined that
the respondents were unwilling to accept constructive criticism
regarding their parenting techniques.
Lisa Abbey was a family services coordinator at The Baby Fold,
where D.D. currently resided and was receiving treatment. She
testified that she supervised visits between the respondents and
D.D. She believed the respondents needed to master basic parenting
skills before learning to parent D.D.'s special needs. She
expressed concern that the respondents were loud and displayed
anger towards A.D.
Dr. Robert Lusk, the clinical director of The Baby Fold,
testified as an expert in clinical psychology. His testimony
centered on D.D.'s progress. He believed that D.D. had progressed
on reducing his anger and improving his social skills.
1
A.D. is not involved in this case.
6
Niewohner, the DCFS caseworker assigned to this case from
September 2003 until August 2006, also testified. She acknowledged
that the minors were returned home to the respondents in January
2005, and that the respondents improved on their parenting skills
while under the in-home monitoring of Addus and DCFS. However, the
respondents regressed on their parenting skills once the in-home
assistance was reduced. The respondents also unilaterally
discontinued some services, including family therapy and Chaddock
theraplay. In a report dated June 2006, Niewohner believed that
the respondents were not capable of providing nurturing care and
management of the minors on a full-time basis.
Tricia Boughton, the caseworker from July 2006 until the time
of the hearing, testified she was concerned because the respondents
had not addressed the issues that initiated the opening of the
case, especially failing to take responsibility for the verbal and
physical abuse they inflicted on the minors. In a client service
plan she filed in April 2007, Boughton stated that "without [the
respondents'] ability to address this [abuse], *** thier (sic)
children will be at further risk of harm." She was also concerned
that the father did not believe D.D. had special needs.
Because the respondents were not consistently performing their
service plan tasks or implementing what they had learned, Boughton
rated their overall progress on each service plan from September
2005 to the present as unsatisfactory. In the April 2007 service
7
plan, Boughton specifically addressed the respondents' progress
regarding discipline and nurturing of the minors. She noted that
further abuse could occur "without the [respondents'] ability to
acknowledge the [physical] abuse as well as thier (sic) ability to
be realistic regarding the significant needs of [D.D.]"
Boughton also testified that the respondents were sometimes
hostile towards her. During a visit in April 2007, she recommended
to the respondents that they watch videos with the minors only once
per month. The respondents disagreed and yelled at Boughton,
causing A.D. to cry and hide beneath a blanket.
The trial court found that the State had proven, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the respondents were unfit for failing to
make: (1) reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were
the basis for removal of the minors (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West
2002)); and (2) reasonable progress toward the return home of the
minors during any nine month period after the adjudication of
neglect and abuse (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(iii) (West 2002)).
After the fitness hearing, the mother's trial counsel sent her
a letter that alleged she had not been truthful with him and
offered a critical opinion of the respondents' efforts on their
service plan tasks and their parenting skills. The mother sent
this letter to the court. The court appointed different counsel to
represent the mother for the best interest hearing.
At the best interest hearing, Brian Joe, a representative of
8
the Cherokee Tribe, was qualified as an expert in the Cherokee
Tribe. Although Joe was a member of the Navajo Tribe, he had
completed 40 hours of coursework on the history of the Cherokee
Nation, possessed a bachelor's degree, and was currently working
towards a master's degree. He attended courses conducted by the
Cherokee Nation on the ICWA, and also participated in Cherokee
powwows and holidays. According to Joe, a Cherokee Indian's family
is to be held in "high importance" to them, and "children are
[their] main concern." Joe testified that he and Paden had worked
with DCFS to monitor the case for the Cherokee Tribe.
Specifically, they ensured that the court and DCFS complied with
the mandates of the ICWA.
According to Joe, DCFS met the requirement of using "active
efforts" in providing services to keep the family intact, although
these services had ultimately been unsuccessful. 25 U.S.C.A.
§1912(d) (West 2001). Joe noted that DCFS had provided "quite a
few services" since the opening of the case in 2003. Joe believed
that the respondents would not have benefited from courses
regarding D.D.'s special needs because they did not accept that
D.D. had special needs and had not mastered basic parenting skills.
Joe further testified that he had reviewed the reports of the other
service providers in the case. He said that the respondents
"weren't able to take what resources they had been given *** and
*** apply more positive parenting style for the children." Thus,
9
the Cherokee Tribe did not oppose termination of the respondents'
parental rights.
The court found that it was in the best interest of the minors
to terminate the respondents' parental rights. The court based
this finding on: (1) the respondents' lack of progress on their
tasks; (2) S.D. and C.D.'s bond with their foster parents, whom
they had resided with since the outset of the case, and the foster
parents' desire to adopt them; and (3) the minors' need for
permanence and stability. The court also specifically found that
the return home of the children would likely result in potential
serious emotional or physical harm to them, as stated in section
1912(f) of the ICWA. 25 U.S.C.A. §1912(f) (West 2001).
ANALYSIS
I. Expert Testimony
The respondents first contend that the State failed to meet
the requirements of section 1912(f) of the ICWA because no
qualified expert witness testified that continued custody by the
parents was likely to result in serious emotional or physical
damage to the children. They also assert that the trial court
failed to determine whether custody by the parents was likely to
result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children.
A. ICWA
The ICWA was enacted by Congress in response to the "growing
concern over the consequences to Indian children, families and
10
tribes of abusive welfare practices which separated large numbers
of Indian children from their families and tribes through adoption
or foster care placement, usually in non-Indian homes." In re
C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 203, 752 N.E.2d 1030, 1043 (2001), citing
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 104
L. Ed. 2d 29, 109 S. Ct. 1597 (1989).
The ICWA articulates the minimum federal standards for the
removal of an Indian child from his or her family. 25 U.S.C.A.
§1902 (West 2001); C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 752 N.E.2d 1030.
Pursuant to section 1912(f), no termination of parental rights may
be ordered in the absence of a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt
and supported by the testimony of "qualified expert witnesses,"
that the continued custody of the children by their parents is
likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to them.
25 U.S.C.A. §1912(f) (West 2001).
B. Expert Witness Testimony
The ICWA does not define "qualified expert witness." However,
the Bureau of Indian Affairs has issued nonbinding guidelines to
assist state courts in their application of the ICWA. 44 Fed. Reg.
67,584 (1979); see C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 752 N.E.2d 1030. Under
those guidelines, an expert witness may be: (1) a member of the
Indian child's tribe who is recognized by the tribe as possessing
knowledge of tribal customs as they pertain to family structure and
child rearing; (2) a lay witness having substantial experience in
11
the delivery of child and family services to Indians, and extensive
knowledge of prevailing cultural and social customs of the Indian
child's tribe; or (3) professionals who have substantial education
in their area of specialty. 44 Fed. Reg. at 67,593, pars.
D.4(b)(i) through (iii) (1979).
The commentary to the guidelines provide that the expert
should determine: (1) whether the parents' conduct will cause
serious physical or emotional harm to the child; and (2) if the
parent can be persuaded to change the damaging conduct. 44 Fed.
Reg. at 67,593, par. D.4 (1979). Courts have considered the
testimony of an expert witness, in conjunction with the testimony
of lay witnesses, sufficient to meet section 1912(f) of the ICWA.
See In re Kreft, 148 Mich. App. 682, 384 N.W.2d 843 (1986).
In this case, Joe testified that he had substantial practical
knowledge and education regarding the Cherokee Tribe. Thus, he met
the "qualified expert witness[]" requirement of section 1912(f).
25 U.S.C.A. §1912(f) (West 2001).
Joe stated that he performed an independent review of the case
by reading reports filed by the other caseworkers and speaking with
them. In his opinion, the respondents did not implement the skills
they were taught to apply a more positive parenting style for the
children and had not achieved basic parenting skills. Other
service providers agreed that the respondents had not achieved
basic parenting skills and had not accepted the reasons why the
12
instant juvenile case was opened. Further, Boughton noted that
because the respondents were unwilling to acknowledge the past
physical and verbal abuse they inflicted on the minors, the minors
would "be at further risk of harm." Thus, Joe's testimony, in
conjunction with the testimony of the other caseworkers,
sufficiently met the requirements of section 1912(f) that the
record show that continued custody of the children by the parents
was likely to result in serious emotional or physical harm.
C. Trial Court Finding
The respondents also allege that the court did not determine
that continued custody of the children by the respondents would
likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the
minors. However, in the order providing for the termination of the
respondents' parental rights, the court found that "the return of
the children to the parents is likely to result in potential
serious emotional or physical damage to the children; therefore, a
termination of parental rights is warranted." Thus, we find the
court complied with the requirements of section 1912(f) of the
ICWA.
II. Active Efforts
Next, the respondents contend that the State failed to prove
that active efforts were made to prevent the breakup of their
family.
Section 1912(d) of the ICWA provides that in a termination
13
proceeding, the party "shall satisfy the court that active efforts
have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative
programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and
those efforts have proved unsuccessful." 25 U.S.C.A. §1912(d)
(West 2001). The State has the burden to show compliance with the
active efforts requirement by a preponderance of the evidence. In
re Cari B., 327 Ill. App. 3d 743, 763 N.E.2d 917 (2002).
The record supports the court's determination that the State
met its burden of establishing active efforts by a preponderance of
the evidence. DCFS offered a number of services to the
respondents, including extensive homemaking services, mental health
counseling, and classes in parenting, anger management, and
domestic violence. The evidence indicates, however, that the
respondents failed to learn from the programs.
Although the respondents argue that "DCFS provided no services
or assistance to the [respondents] for their special needs
children," the record shows that these services were offered
through SASS and Chaddock theraplay. The father refused to
recognize D.D.'s special needs. Also, Schneider testified that
because the respondents had not been consistent in implementing
basic parenting skills, further services, such as those concerning
D.D.'s special needs, could not be offered.
Thus, the record supports the trial court's holding that the
State met its burden under section 1912(d) of the ICWA and
14
established active efforts by a preponderance of the evidence.
Still, the record does not show the counsel's representation
of the mother fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the circuit court of Hancock County is
affirmed.
Affirmed.
O'BRIEN and WRIGHT, JJ., concurring.
15