In re R.L.-C.

2025 IL App (2d) 250051-U No. 2-25-0051 Order filed June 12, 2025 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ In re R.L.-C., a Minor ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Kane County. ) ) No. 23-JA-27 ) ) Honorable (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner- ) Kathryn D. Karayannis, Appellee, v. Aimee C., Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Schostok and Birkett concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: We grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the circuit court’s judgment terminating respondent’s parental rights, concluding there exist no issues of arguable merit to be raised on appeal. ¶2 Respondent, Aimee C., appeals from the circuit court’s order finding her unfit to parent her daughter, R.L.-C. (born December 6, 2019), and terminating her parental rights. 1 Per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and In re S.M., 314 Ill. App. 3d 682, 685 (2000) (holding Anders applies to cases involving termination of parental rights), appointed appellate counsel moves to 1 The parental rights of Sarah L., R.L.-C.’s other parent, were also terminated. She is not a party to this appeal. 2025 IL App (2d) 250051-U withdraw. Counsel has supported her motion with a memorandum of law providing a statement of facts, potential issues, and argument as to why those issues lack arguable merit. See In re Alexa J., 345 Ill. App. 3d 985, 988 (2003) (further holding that “counsel must identify at least one potentially justiciable issue in a motion to withdraw under Anders.”). In her motion, counsel states that she read the record and found no issues of arguable merit. Counsel, further, served respondent with a copy of the motion and memorandum. We advised respondent that she had 30 days to respond to counsel’s motion. That time has passed, and no response was filed. We conclude that this appeal lacks arguable merit based on the reasons set forth in counsel’s memorandum. Thus, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm the circuit court’s judgment. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 Respondent had a lengthy history of involvement with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Specifically, on February 1, 2023, DCFS received a call reporting that respondent was intoxicated and grabbed R.L.-C. by the arm and swung her around aggressively. Respondent then left the shelter with R.L.-C. and placed her in the care of Kari Young at the Candlewood Suites in Aurora. While at this location, respondent began punching and kicking walls. She was asked to leave the premises and refused. Respondent was thereafter arrested and charged with aggravated battery to a peace officer, aggravated assault to a peace officer, and criminal trespass to land. ¶5 At a shelter-care hearing on February 28, 2023, the court found that probable cause existed to proceed with the petition for adjudication, thereby requiring the urgent and immediate removal of R.L.-C. from respondent’s care. The court placed R.L.-C. in the temporary custody of DCFS and scheduled an adjudicatory hearing. The court appointed CASA of Kane County as the guardian -2- 2025 IL App (2d) 250051-U ad litem (GAL) for R.L.-C. She was initially placed with Kari Young, fictive kin, and respondent and Sarah L. were allowed supervised visitation at the discretion of DCFS. ¶6 After hearings on April 25, 2023, and May 23, 2023, the circuit court, relying on the factual basis submitted by the State and stipulated by respondent and Sarah L., found R.L.-C. to be neglected. The court continued on to a dispositional hearing on May 23, 2023. There, the court found that it was in the best interests of the minor to be made a ward of the court. Regarding both parents, the court determined that, for reasons other than financial circumstances alone, respondent and Sarah L. were