Digitally signed by
Reporter of Decisions
Reason: I attest to the
Illinois Official Reports accuracy and integrity
of this document
Date: 2018.04.17
Appellate Court 14:10:37 -05'00'
In re M.G., 2018 IL App (3d) 170591
Appellate Court In re M.G., K.G., and C.G., Minors (The People of the State of
Caption Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Sommer L., Respondent-Appellant).
District & No. Third District
Docket Nos. 3-17-0591, 3-17-0592, 3-17-0593 cons.
Filed January 31, 2018
Modified upon
denial of rehearing February 28, 2018
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Tazewell County, Nos. 16-JA-39,
Review 16-JA-40, 16-JA-41, the Hon. Kirk D. Schoenbein, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Affirmed.
Counsel on Louis P. Milot, of Peoria, for appellant.
Appeal
Stewart J. Umholtz, State’s Attorney, of Pekin (Patrick Delfino,
Lawrence M. Bauer, and Justin A. Nicolosi, of State’s Attorneys
Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
Aimee E. Dluski, of Pekin, guardian ad litem.
Panel JUSTICE O’BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
Presiding Justice Carter and Justice Wright concurred in the judgment
and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Respondent mother appealed from a Tazewell County circuit court order finding her
dispositionally unfit and terminating the wardship of the minors.
¶2 FACTS
¶3 The State filed shelter care petitions for the three minors, M.G., K.G., and C.G., alleging
neglect in that their environment was injurious to their welfare pursuant to section 2-3 of the
Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2016)). The petitions alleged
that on March 23, 2016, the minors’ father, Kevin G., and his paramour, Elizabeth H., were
under the influence of drugs in front of the minors and possessed controlled substances in the
home. The petition alleged that the respondent mother, Sommer L., had previously been
involved in juvenile court and could not provide minimal parenting because she did not have
permanent housing. The mother admitted the allegation made against her in paragraphs f and g
of the petition. A temporary custody order was entered, and thereafter the minors were
adjudicated neglected.
¶4 A dispositional report filed with the court on July 1, 2016, recommended that the mother
complete a parenting class, complete individual therapy, and continue weekly, unsupervised
visits. At the dispositional hearing, the State argued that the father was unfit and the mother
was unable. The State asked for drug drops and a substance abuse assessment as to both the
mother and the father. The mother’s counsel acknowledged that the mother had no stable
housing and stated that the mother had no problem with doing the drug drops. The circuit court
found the father to be unfit. The mother was found to be fit but unable. 1 The circuit court
adopted all of the recommendations in the dispositional report and, in addition, ordered the
mother to obtain a substance abuse assessment, perform two random drug drops each month,
and obtain stable housing. At the December 16, 2016, permanency review hearing, the father
was found to be fit. The court did not make any change in the status of the mother.
¶5 The June 2017 permanency review report indicated that the mother was not making
satisfactory progress or reasonable efforts toward the goal of the minors returning home. The
report indicated the mother had been arrested on March 3, 2017, along with her paramour, for
methamphetamine manufacturing. The mother had completed only one of the twice-monthly
drug drops, on March 20, 2017, which was negative. She had been assessed by Gateway Drug
and Alcohol (Gateway), but the mother reported to the caseworker that Gateway did not
1
In the dispositional order, the circuit court checked the box that said that the mother was fit, able,
and willing to care for the minors but also indicated that the mother was unwilling to care for the minors
because she lacked stable housing. At the permanency review hearing on August 10, 2017, the circuit
court clarified that it had found the mother to be unable to care for the minors.
-2-
recommend treatment. The caseworker contacted Gateway and was informed that the mother
had completed the assessment, but was recommended for basic outpatient treatment for three
days a week and was unsuccessfully discharged for never attending a class. The mother had not
completed parenting classes, reportedly due to transportation issues. She was successfully
discharged from counseling. Her visits with the minors were supervised since the arrest.
¶6 At the permanency review hearing on August 10, 2017, the caseworker testified that she
did not have any paperwork from Gateway but she had just taken over the case. Her supervisor,
Kristi Heskett, testified that the mother had been unsuccessfully discharged from Gateway but
they had yet to receive the report from Gateway. Heskett also testified that the former
caseworker offered bus passes to the mother upon request but the mother never requested
them. The mother testified that she was assessed at Gateway, was told she did not need
treatment, but was going to go anyway because it would not hurt. However, she then decided to
work on other things that were required. The mother testified that she did not do the parenting
classes or drug drops due to transportation issues. The mother had told the caseworker that she
could use a bus pass, but the caseworker never gave her one. The mother testified that she was
not working and she lived with her daughter. Either her daughter or her mother, who both had
cars, would drive the mother to the grocery store and the minors’ school events.
¶7 The circuit court found that the mother had not made reasonable progress toward the
minors’ return home. It found the mother to be dispositionally unfit because she had been
arrested for methamphetamine, she failed to complete treatment recommended after the
substance abuse assessment, and she continued to associate with her paramour who was going
to prison for methamphetamine. The father, however, remained fit and had made reasonable
efforts and progress toward return home. Custody and guardianship of the minors were
restored to the father, and the wardship was terminated. The mother appealed.
¶8 ANALYSIS
¶9 As an initial matter, the mother argues that the dispositional order was void because she
was not found unfit, unable, or unwilling at the dispositional hearing. After the minors were
adjudicated neglected, the Act required the circuit court to hold a dispositional hearing to, as an
initial matter, determine whether it was in the best interests of the minors and the public that
the minors be made wards of the court. 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2), 2-22(1) (West 2016); In re
M.M., 2016 IL 119932, ¶ 17. The circuit court made such a finding in this case and made the
minors wards of the court. Contrary to the mother’s argument, both the oral pronouncement
and the trial court’s written order demonstrate that the mother was found fit but unable to care
for the minor children due to the mother’s lack of suitable housing. The record further
demonstrates that the mother never corrected this situation during the pendency of the
proceedings.
¶ 10 Pursuant to the Act, once a minor is made a ward of the court, the court has to determine the
disposition that best serves the health, safety, and interests of the minor and the public. 705
ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2016). There are four basic types of dispositional orders with respect
to a ward of the court: (1) continued in the care of the minor’s parent, guardian, or legal
custodian; (2) restored to the custody of the minor’s parent, guardian, or legal custodian; (3)
ordered partially or completely emancipated; or (4) placed in accordance with section 2-27 of
the Act. Id. § 2-23(1)(a); M.M., 2016 IL 119932, ¶ 18. In this case, the minors were placed in
-3-
the custody and guardianship of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in
accordance with section 2-27(1) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-27(1) (West 2016)).
¶ 11 Section 2-27(1) of the Act does not authorize placing a ward of the court with a third party
absent a finding of parental unfitness, inability, or unwillingness to care for the minor. M.M.,
2016 IL 119932, ¶ 31. In this case, the mother admitted the allegations set forth in the petition,
namely that she was unable to parent the children because she lacked suitable housing. The
circuit court did find the father unfit and the mother unable, in its dispositional order entered
July 1, 2016, to take custody of the minors and therefore granted custody and guardianship of
the minors to DCFS. Those dispositional findings are not against the manifest weight of the
evidence. See In re C.H., 2017 IL App (3d) 160729, ¶ 8 (an appellate court will reverse a trial
court’s dispositional findings when they are against the manifest weight of the evidence or the
trial court abused its discretion in fashioning an improper dispositional order).
¶ 12 The mother also argues that the circuit court had no jurisdiction or authority to make a
finding of unfitness at the permanency review hearing and that the mother had no notice that
she would be subject to a dispositional determination at the permanency review hearing.
¶ 13 “[O]nce a child has been made a ward of the court and a dispositional order has been
entered, the court may, at any time, vacate the original dispositional order and enter any other
dispositional order that it could have entered under section 2-23(a) of the Act ***.” In re
Austin W., 214 Ill. 2d 31, 44 (2005), abrogated on other grounds by In re M.M., 2016 IL
119932. Section 2-28 of the Act governs court proceedings that review the original
dispositional order, which are known as permanency review hearings. 705 ILCS 405/2-28
(West 2016); In re S.M., 223 Ill. App. 3d 543, 547 (1992). Permanency review hearings
pursuant to section 2-28 of the Act are simply further dispositional hearings, conducted in
accordance with section 2-22(1) of the Act, which governs how dispositional hearings are to be
held. In re C.H., 398 Ill. App. 3d 603, 606-07 (2010). Since the mother had notice of the
permanency review hearing and testified at the hearing, she had sufficient notice of the
proceedings, and the circuit court had the authority to vacate the mother’s prior finding of
fitness and enter an order of unfitness based upon the evidence.
¶ 14 The mother further contends that when the circuit court terminated the wardship at the
permanency review hearing, it relinquished authority to make fitness findings and
guardianship determinations. The mother argues that the orders finding her unfit, naming the
father as the sole guardian, terminating the wardship, and closing the case were all made
simultaneously. The State contends that the order terminating the wardship was the last order
made by the circuit court, so the court had jurisdiction to make the other orders prior to the
termination.
¶ 15 Dispositional decisions, such as findings of unfitness and determinations of guardianship,
are statutorily predicated upon the court first making the minors wards of the court. In re C.L.,
384 Ill. App. 3d 689, 697 (2008). Thus, any such orders entered without a wardship are void.
Id. However, once minors have been made wards of the court, the termination of a wardship
does not automatically terminate all prior orders of custodianship or guardianship. 705 ILCS
405/2-31(2) (West 2016); see In re M.M., 337 Ill. App. 3d 764, 777-78 (2003) (section 2-31(2)
of the Act specifically authorizes a court to close a juvenile case where there is an open order of
guardianship). In this case, the circuit court found the mother dispositionally unfit, made the
father the sole guardian and custodian, and then terminated the wardship, albeit all at one court
proceeding. The circuit court had jurisdiction until it entered the order terminating the
-4-
wardship, so we find that the circuit court still had jurisdiction when it found the mother to be
unfit.
¶ 16 Substantively, the mother argues that the circuit court erred when it found her to be
dispositionally unfit. The mother contends that the circuit court relied on incorrect information
and improper evidence, specifically that there was no finding that the mother was unable to
care for the minors at the dispositional hearing, there was no order for drug drops, and the
circuit judge speculated as to the circumstances of her arrest for methamphetamine when she
was entitled to a presumption of innocence.
¶ 17 As we have already noted, the record supports the finding that the mother was unable to
care for the minors. Also, the written dispositional order clearly requires the mother to perform
random drug drops twice a month. The mother argues that the written order is in conflict with
the judge’s oral pronouncement, so the oral pronouncement should prevail. See In re R.W., 371
Ill. App. 3d 1171, 1173 (2007) (when a trial court’s oral pronouncement is in conflict with its
written order, the oral pronouncement prevails). We find, though, no conflict between the oral
pronouncement and the written order. At the dispositional hearing, the State recommended
drug drops for the mother, and the mother’s counsel stated that the mother had no problem with
the drug drops. The circuit court did not make any oral pronouncements regarding drug drops
to the contrary.
¶ 18 With respect to the mother’s arrest, the permanency report submitted to the circuit court
indicated that the mother and her paramour had been arrested for methamphetamine
manufacturing. The mother also testified as to her arrest and the fact that the case was still
pending. The circuit court acknowledged the mother’s arrest for methamphetamine but also
acknowledged her presumption of innocence. The circuit court referenced the mother’s arrest
in the context of her continued relationship with her paramour, who, the mother had testified,
was likely to plead guilty to the crime and go to prison. There is no indication that the circuit
court improperly considered the mother guilty of the crime charged.
¶ 19 Lastly, the mother argues that the circuit court erred in terminating the wardship and
closing the case. The mother contends that the circuit court failed to specifically explain how it
was in the best interest of the minors to terminate the wardship, so the circuit court’s findings
did not comply with section 2-31(2) of the Act. The State contends that the decision to
terminate the wardship and close the case was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 20 Whether a circuit court failed to follow statutory requirements is a question of law that is
reviewed de novo. In re Aaron R., 387 Ill. App. 3d 1130, 1138 (2009). As noted above, an
appellate court will only reverse a trial court’s dispositional findings when they are against the
manifest weight of the evidence or the trial court abused its discretion in fashioning an
improper dispositional order. Under section 2-31(2), a trial court may only terminate
proceedings “[w]henever the court determines, and makes written factual findings, that health,
safety, and the best interests of the minor and the public no longer require the wardship of the
court.” Id. (quoting 705 ILCS 405/2-31(2) (West 2016)).
¶ 21 In this case, the circuit court made the written factual findings that the father remained fit
and had made reasonable efforts and progress toward the return of the minors. The circuit court
also made the explicit oral ruling that it was no longer in the best interest of the minors to
remain wards of the court. In making that decision, the circuit court relied on the testimony in
court, but also on the permanency review report and its addendum that indicated that the father
had been restored to fitness and remained fit, had successfully obtained appropriate housing
-5-
for himself and the minors, had complied with and completed all objectives, and had
successfully corrected the conditions that led to DCFS involvement. Those findings were
sufficient to comply with the requirements of section 2-31(2) of the Act. See In re K.S., 317 Ill.
App. 3d 830, 833 (2000). In addition, we find that the circuit court’s factual findings were not
against the manifest weight of the evidence and that there was no abuse of discretion.
¶ 22 CONCLUSION
¶ 23 The judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County is affirmed.
¶ 24 Affirmed.
-6-