In re J.C., T.C., B.C., T.K., B.K., A.K., and J.H., Minors, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ELISHA HALLAM, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 4-11-0861
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District
February 24, 2012
2012 IL App (4th) 110861
The finding that respondent‘s children were neglected was affirmed, notwithstanding the trial court‘s error in admitting the State‘s exhibits, including the entire investigatory file on respondent, on the ground that the exhibits constituted “indicated reports” pursuant to
Decision Under Review Appeal from the Circuit Court of Livingston County, No. 10-JA-9; the Hon. Robert M. Travers, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Affirmed.
Thomas J. Brown, State‘s Attorney, of Pontiac (Patrick Delfino, Robert J. Biderman, and David E. Mannchen, all of State‘s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor‘s Office, of counsel), for the People.
Panel JUSTICE McCULLOUGH delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Steigmann and Pope concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶ 1 Respondent, Elisha Hallam, argues the trial court erred by finding her children neglected. She contends the court admitted and considered evidence at the adjudicatory hearing that should have been ruled inadmissible. We affirm.
¶ 2 Respondent is the mother of seven children, J.C. (born January 5, 2000), T.C. (born December 14, 2000), B.C. (born May 16, 2002), T.K. (born October 7, 2004), B.K. (born January 2, 2006), A.K. (born December 24, 2006), and J.H. (born June 22, 2010). In September 2010, the State filed a first amended petition for adjudication of wardship. It alleged respondent‘s children were neglected because their environment was injurious to their welfare due to (1) respondent‘s use of illegal drugs while pregnant with J.H., (2) respondent‘s use of heroin in the children‘s presence, (3) lack of supervision by respondent, (4) respondent‘s failure to ensure that the children were clean and free of head lice, and (5) respondent‘s failure to attend court-ordered substance-abuse treatment.
¶ 3 On January 28 and May 17, 2011, the trial court conducted the adjudicatory hearing in the matter. The State presented the testimony of T.C., who stated he was 10 years old. He described living in various places with respondent and his siblings, including a house, an apartment, and a trailer. T.C. testified he found needles at each residence in bags, in cabinets, or on shelves. He described a needle he found in the trailer as being white with an orange cap. Evidence showed T.C. and his family lived in the trailer immediately prior to when the children were taken into care. While living in the trailer in May or June 2010, T.C. observed respondent in a bathroom with a belt around her arm and sticking a needle into her arm. T.C. stated his two younger brothers were with him at the time and the needle he observed respondent using was the same type of needle he found in his family‘s various residences on other occasions.
¶ 4 Jeff Hunt testified he worked for the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and, from June 2009 to June 2010, was the intact family caseworker for respondent and her children. On June 24, 2010, respondent‘s children were taken into protective custody.
¶ 5 Nicole Kingsby testified she worked for the Livingston County probation department and, in November 2009, began supervising respondent on probation. At that time, respondent was ordered to obtain a substance-abuse evaluation and complete treatment. Kingsby referred respondent to Angela Walker, a substance-abuse counselor with the Institute for Human Resources. Walker testified she evaluated respondent in January and February 2010 and diagnosed her with opioid and cannabis dependence. Heroin was respondent‘s drug of choice. Walker stated respondent reported that her drug use increased from very little use at age 17 to daily use by the age of 25. Walker recommended respondent attend individual counseling sessions twice a month but respondent failed to comply with that recommendation.
¶ 6 Theresa Ciardini testified she worked for DCFS as a child protection investigator. On June 24, 2010, Ciardini took protective custody of respondent‘s six oldest children. Respondent‘s newborn infant was taken into protective custody the following day after being released from the hospital. Upon taking the older children into protective custody, Ciardini observed that the children did not appear to have been bathed in a while. She noted their clothes were unclean and there was an odor about them. The four oldest children were examined by a doctor and found to have head lice.
¶ 7 The State asked Ciardini to identify two exhibits. She identified People‘s exhibit No. 1 as the “completed investigation that [she] submitted” and agreed it was “an indicated report that was filed pursuant to the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act” (Reporting Act) (
¶ 8 People‘s exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 contained over 200 and 100 pages, respectively. Ciardini testified the first 43 pages of People‘s exhibit No. 1 and the first 48 pages of People‘s exhibit No. 2 were computer printouts from DCFS‘s computer system. She stated investigators entered information from their investigations into that system. The resulting printout was labeled “Handoff Document” and comprised the “entire investigation.” Ciardini testified the remaining documents in People‘s exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 were supporting material that was gathered from witnesses and other people involved in the case. She stated that any documentation that was gathered by an investigator was “put in the hard copy file along with the printout from the computer.”
¶ 9 Ciardini testified the printouts contained information regarding the initial reports of neglect, taking the children into protective custody, and the outcome of the shelter-care hearing. The initial page of each printout listed “attachments” under the following headings: (1) intake summary, (2) person/allegations/relationships/protective custody, (3) assessment,
¶ 10 Information from the DCFS computer printout in People‘s exhibit No. 1 showed, on June 23, 2010, a report of suspected child abuse or neglect was made to DCFS by a hospital social worker. Respondent was the alleged perpetrator and the allegations against her were “substantial risk of physical injury/environment injurious to health and welfare.” A narrative regarding the report shows respondent had given birth to J.H. on June 22, 2010, and the reporter was concerned J.H. was at risk due to respondent‘s history. Respondent provided inconsistent information regarding the number of children in her care and tested positive for opiates. Also, she had not received any prenatal care during her pregnancy with J.H. even though her last child had needed a blood transfusion at birth and respondent had been informed that she would need certain injections during subsequent pregnancies. People‘s exhibit No. 1 showed the report was determined to be “indicated.”
¶ 11 The computer printout also contained documents identified as DCFS case, contact, or supervisory notes dated from June to August 2010. Further, attached to the printout were several documents, including child identification forms, a notice to respondent of suspected child abuse or neglect, respondent‘s domestic-violence and substance-abuse screens, home-safety checklists for investigation specialists, placement authorization forms, checklists for children at initial placement, medical professional‘s written confirmation of suspected child abuse/neglect report, notice of foster-care placement, the shelter-care report, the original petition for adjudication of wardship, a notice of rights for respondents in juvenile court proceedings, the temporary shelter-care order, Department of Public Aid temporary mediplan cards, DCFS new client intake forms, health service encounter forms, DCFS data sheets, and DCFS child/caregiver matching tool forms.
¶ 12 People‘s exhibit No. 2‘s computer printout similarly showed a report of abuse or neglect regarding respondent and her children. That report was made on June 18, 2009, by a police officer and alleged inadequate supervision by respondent of her six oldest children. A narrative concerning the report showed the reporting police officer discovered respondent‘s children, ranging from two to nine years of age, wandering around a city park unsupervised. The officer returned the children home and found respondent falling asleep on her porch. The same date, the officer discovered T.K. and B.K. walking the streets unsupervised at 11 p.m. while attempting to get money for respondent. A police officer returned T.K. and B.K. home and found respondent passed out on the living room floor. The officer had a difficult time waking respondent. This report was also determined to be “indicated.”
¶ 13 Again the DCFS computer printout contained case, contact, and supervisory notes dated from June to July 2009. Attached to the printout were documents, including a notification to respondent of suspected child abuse or neglect, respondent‘s domestic-violence and substance-abuse screens, home-safety checklists for investigation specialists, county incident reports, criminal history data for respondent and the children‘s fathers, and DCFS notifications of the recommended indicated findings of child abuse or neglect.
¶ 14 Respondent objected to admission of the State‘s exhibits on the basis of hearsay and argued that they were not simply “indicated reports,” admissible pursuant to
¶ 15 On August 3, 2011, the trial court entered a dispositional order. It found respondent unfit to care for, protect, train, educate, supervise, or discipline her children and placement in her care would be against their best interests. The court adjudicated the minors neglected, made them wards of the court, and placed their custody and guardianship with DCFS. (The children‘s fathers were also found unfit and the children removed from their care; however, neither father is a party to this appeal.) On August 11, 2011, respondent filed a motion to reconsider the court‘s dispositional order. On September 23, 2011, the court denied her motion.
¶ 16 This appeal followed.
¶ 17 On appeal, respondent argues the trial court erred by finding her children neglected. She contends, at the adjudicatory hearing, the court improperly admitted and relied upon the State‘s two exhibits. Respondent maintains the exhibits contained information in excess of what is permitted by
¶ 18 At the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court determines whether a minor is abused, neglected, or dependent.
¶ 19 However, the issue presented by this case concerns what material physically constitutes an “indicated report” within the meaning of the Act. As such, it involves matters of statutory construction, which are subject to a de novo standard of review. In re I.H., 238 Ill. 2d 430, 438, 939 N.E.2d 375, 379 (2010). “The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to determine and give effect to the legislature‘s intent,” which “is best indicated by giving the statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning.” I.H., 238 Ill. 2d at 438, 939 N.E.2d at 379. “To determine the plain meaning, we must consider the statute in its entirety and be mindful of the subject it addresses, as well as the legislature‘s intent in enacting the statute.” I.H., 238 Ill. 2d at 438, 939 N.E.2d at 379. “[T]he purpose and policy of the Act is to serve and protect the best interests of minors” and it must be liberally construed. In re A.P., 179 Ill. 2d 184, 197, 688 N.E.2d 642, 649 (1997).
¶ 20 As noted by the parties,
¶ 21 The Reporting Act provides for the reporting of suspected cases of abused or neglected children.
“a) family composition, including the name, age, sex, race, ethnicity, and address of the children named in the report and any other children in the environment;
b) name, age, sex, race, ethnicity and address of the children‘s parents, caregiver, if different from the parent(s), and if different, the relationship of the caregiver to the child(ren), and of the alleged perpetrator and his/her relationship to the child subjects;
c) the physical harm to the involved children and an estimation of the children‘s present physical, medical, and environmental condition. This estimation should include information concerning any previous incidents of suspected child abuse or neglect; and
d) the reporter‘s name, occupation and relationship to the children, actions taken by the reporter, where the reporter can be reached, and other information the reporter believes will be of assistance.”
89 Ill. Adm. Code 300.40 (2012).
¶ 22 Once a report is received, DCFS investigative staff conduct an initial investigation to determine “whether there is reasonable cause to believe that child abuse or neglect exists.”
¶ 23 The term “indicated report” has two components, referring both to the report of suspected child abuse or neglect and the ultimate finding by a DCFS investigator that the report is supported by credible evidence. Here, Ciardini acknowledged that the State‘s exhibits included the “entire investigation” into the reports of child neglect. While the finding that a report of abuse or neglect is “indicated” is necessarily based upon an investigation into the report, it does not follow that the entire record of the investigation is admissible under the hearsay exception contained in
¶ 24 Even giving the Act the most liberal construction, we find no basis for including an entire DCFS investigatory file within the definition of “indicated report.” Here, the trial court erred by admitting the State‘s exhibits in their entirety on the basis that they constituted “indicated reports” pursuant to
¶ 25 We note the State argues it is unnecessary for this court to determine whether its exhibits constituted “indicated reports” because they were also admissible as business records under
“Any writing, record, photograph or x-ray of any hospital or public or private agency, whether in the form of an entry in a book or otherwise, made as a memorandum or record of any condition, act, transaction, occurrence or event relating to a minor in an abuse, neglect or dependency proceeding, shall be admissible in evidence as proof of that condition, act, transaction, occurrence or event, if the court finds that the document was made in the regular course of the business of the hospital or agency and that it was in the regular course of such business to make it, at the time of the act, transaction, occurrence or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter.”
705 ILCS 405/2-18(4)(a) (West 2010).
¶ 26 For admission of evidence pursuant to
¶ 27 As the State points out, Ciardini testified that the State‘s exhibits contained only documents she used during the regular course of performing her duties as a DCFS investigator and that each exhibit was prepared within a reasonable time after the investigations began. Nevertheless, we also find it would be inappropriate to admit the exhibits in their entirety on this asserted basis.
¶ 28 Initially, we note section 2-18(4)(a)‘s hearsay exception for business records was not a basis for admission of the State‘s exhibits at the adjudicatory hearing. During lengthy discussions of this issue over two different dates, it was a position neither argued for by the
¶ 29 Here, although the trial court erred by allowing the State‘s exhibits in their entirety into evidence, we also find its error was harmless. Errors in the admission of evidence may be deemed harmless where ample evidence supported the court‘s neglect finding. J.Y., 2011 IL App (3d) 100727, ¶ 15. In this case, even excluding consideration of the State‘s exhibits, the trial court‘s finding that respondent‘s children were neglected was supported by sufficient evidence.
¶ 30 The State must prove allegations of neglect by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d 441, 463-64, 819 N.E.2d 734, 747 (2004). Under the Act, a neglected minor includes “any minor under 18 years of age whose environment is injurious to his or her welfare.”
¶ 31 In this case, the State alleged respondent‘s children were neglected because their environment was injurious to their welfare. At the adjudicatory hearing, the State presented the testimony of several witnesses, including respondent‘s son, T.C.; a DCFS caseworker; respondent‘s probation officer; and respondent‘s substance-abuse counselor. Evidence showed respondent was on probation and was ordered to obtain a substance-abuse evaluation and treatment. She was referred to a substance-abuse counselor who evaluated her in early 2010. The counselor diagnosed respondent with opioid and cannabis dependance and testified that heroin was respondent‘s drug of choice. Respondent failed to comply with the counselor‘s recommendations for treatment.
¶ 32 In June 2010, respondent was hospitalized in connection with the birth of J.H. At that time, she acknowledged to her DCFS caseworker that she had a “positive screen” at the hospital and that just prior to her hospital admission she had taken Tylenol 3 with codeine, a substance for which she did not have a prescription. Most important, however, was the testimony of T.C., who described finding hypodermic needles in various residences he shared with respondent and his siblings. T.C. also testified that while living with respondent in May
¶ 33 The State‘s evidence, even without consideration of any portion of its two exhibits, revealed respondent had issues with substance abuse to which she exposed her children. The State‘s evidence was unrebutted and more than sufficient to sustain its burden. The trial court‘s neglect finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 34 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court‘s judgment.
¶ 35 Affirmed.