Preview
Hearing Date: 4/22/2024 10:30 AM FILED
Location: Court Room 2102 12/21/2023 11:48 PM
Judge: Atkins, David B. IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT CLERK
COOK COUNTY, IL
2023CH10201
Calendar, 16
25707805
2023CH10201
Exhibit 1
Illinois Department of
Ss
%
a
JB Pritzker
Governor
i
Children & Family Services
Marc D. Smith
Director
CERTIFIED MAIL
October 3, 2023
Mackenzie Rastello
Attorney at Law
Jones Day
110 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Re: Jasmine Bhatti, SCR #2479430-A, DKT #2022-E-00305, AHU #55-9674
Dear Ms. Rastello:
On August 23, 2023, the Department completed a hearing to consider your client’s request for expunction of
information pertaining to the following allegation:
ALLEGATION OF HARM #60 - ENVIRONMENT INJURIOUS
The Administrative Law Judge listened to the testimony, reviewed the facts of the case, and determined that the
indicated finding has been supported by a preponderance of the evidence for allegation of harm #60.
Additionally, the Administrative Law Judge made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that I adopt
and incorporate into my decision. Specifically, the Administrative Law Judge recommended, and I concur, that
your client’s request for expunction of the record of allegation of harm #60 be DENIED.
This letter is the final administrative decision. If your client is not satisfied, she may seek judicial review of this
decision under the Administrative Review Law, 735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq., by filing a complaint for
administrative review in the circuit court. The complaint for administrative review must be filed within 35 days of
the date this decision was served on you. This decision was served on you when it was deposited in the United
States mail on October 3, 2023.
Very truly yours,
Mare D. Smith
Enclosure
ce: Carmen Love, Administrative Law Judge Tamela Atwood, Deputy Director-SCR
Elizabeth Butler, Department Representative Trista Cox, SPSA-SCR
Carol Melton, Chief Administrative Law Judge Maria Miller, Deputy Bureau Chief of Child Protection and SCR
SAFETY SAFETY
FIRST ALWAYS,
Office of the Director
406 E. Monroe Street + Springfield, Illinois 62701
217-785-2509
www2.illinois.gov/DCFS
. e
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
|,_ S$ Ocampo certify that | served a copy of the attached Final Administrative Decision / Final
Order, to the addressee by depositing the same in the United States mail by certified mail with proper
postage prepaid and properly addressed _ 10/03/2023 _.
Certified # 4489 0090 O02? &52b 3013 Ob
STATE OF ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS UNIT
IN THE MATTER OF DKT# 2022-E-00305
Jasmine Bhatti AHU# 55-9674
SCR# 2479430-A
Appellant
OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
INTRODUCTION
On December 16, 2021, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services
(hereinafter “Department”) determined that credible evidence supported an indicated finding of
allegation of harm #60 — Environment Injurious to the Health and Welfare of a Child by Neglect
against Jasmine Bhatti (hereinafter “Appellant”) as to her sonMGR DED (hereinafter
“V@EED”) born GERD cr daughter 1D ® (hereinafter “QD bo QD
@D., and her paramour’s daughters KIN] (hereinafter “QP”) born TD
MED NOD (hereinafter “VQ ) born QED, 20d AGED NBD rereinafter
QD’) bo QHD. on August 23, 2023, the Department completed an administrative
hearing via WebEx before Administrative Law Judge Carmen Love in Chicago, Illinois pursuant
to Paragraph 5/7.16 of the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act (hereinafter “ANCRA”),
325 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (2019) which provides that a subject of a report shall have the right to a
hearing within the Department to determine whether the record of the report should be amended
or expunged on the grounds that it is inaccurate or it is being maintained in a manner inconsistent
with ANCRA. Appellant seeks expunction of the indicated report from the State Central Register
on the grounds that the allegation is inaccurate.
ISSUE
The issue before the Administrative Law Judge was whether the Appellant’s indicated
finding of child neglect, specifically allegation of harm #60 — Environment Injurious to the Health
and Welfare of a Child by Neglect should continue to be maintained on the State Central Register,
or whether the indicated report is inaccurate and should be expunged. The Administrative Law
Judge finds that a preponderance of the evidence supports the indicated finding of allegation of
harm #60 — Environment Injurious to the Health and Welfare of a Child by Neglect.
PERSONS PRESENT AT THE HEARING
Parties of record and present via WebEx at the proceeding were:
Department of Children and Family Services, represented by Elizabeth Butler, litigation
attorney; and
Jasmine Bhatti, Appellant represented by Mackenzie Rastello, Nia Mack, and Elsa
Andrianifahanana.
Also present at the hearing were:
Angela Moncada, Investigator Supervisor, Illinois Department of Children and Family
Services, Child Protection Division.
Colton Sodt, Police Officer, Chicago Police Department.
Donald Boardman, Police Officer, Chicago Police Department.
Deborah Vance, mother of Zachary Nabb.
Elias Abudayeh, Police Officer, Chicago Police Department.
Mohammad Israil, Appellant’s father.
Margaret Hefty, Associate Director, Sarah’s Inn.
10. Carmen Love, Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter “ALJ”).
EXHIBITS
The following exhibits were entered into evidence at hearing and are hereby incorporated
into the record:
1 DCFS Exhibit #1, Chicago Police Department body camera footage from
November 16, 2020. Admitted over Appellant objection.
DCFS Exhibit #2, Chicago Police Department body camera footage from April
22, 2021. Admitted over Appellant objection.
DCFS Exhibit #3, Chicago Police Department body camera footage from May 24,
2021. Admitted over Appellant objection.
DCFS Exhibit #4, investigative file for SCR #2479430-A. Admitted by
agreement.
Appellant Exhibit #1, Chicago Police Department Police Report, report number
JE 241672, May 24, 2021, 2 pages. Admitted by agreement.
Appellant Exhibit #2, Judicial Notice taken of Order of Protection, case number
210P77854, September 28, 2021, 12 pages. Admitted by agreement.
Appellant Group Exhibit #3, email from the Appellant to D. Jamison, November
23, 2021, 1 page, and Judicial Notice taken of Order of Protection, case number
210P77854, October 19, 2021, 4 pages. Admitted by agreement.
Appellant Exhibit #4, Margaret Hefty’s resume, 2 pages. Admitted by agreement.
9. Appellant Exhibit #5, report by Margaret Hefty April 3, 2023, 15 pages. Admitted
over Department’s objection.
BACKGROUND
On June 1, 2021, a hotline call was placed indicating that the Appellant and her
boyfriend, Zachary Nabb, fought in front of their children “all the time” and the Appellant called
the police on Mr. Nabb “all the time”.
FINDINGS OF FACT
It is within the province of the ALJ to determine the credibility of the witnesses, resolve
disputed questions of fact, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. Finik v. Illinois
Department of Employment Security, 171 Ml.App.3d 125, 524 N.E.2d 1148, 1212 Ill.Dec. 100 (1*
Dist. 1988). After carefully reviewing all the evidence, the Administrative Law Judge makes the
following findings of fact:
1 Kqunee: a female minor born QED. and at the time of the hotline call she
wa@years old.
MEBvN@ is a female minor born QED, and at the time of the hotline call
shewa@ycars old.
M@ED GED is 2 male minor bom GED. and at the time of the hotline call
he wa: years old.
AGED N@Bs 2 female minor born QD, and at the time of the hotline call she
was@> years old. At the time of the hotline call, M@iiwas a youth in the care of the
Department.
> N@Bis a female minor born QED, and at the time of the hotline call she
was@months old.
The Appellant is M@p’s and J@P’s mother.
Zachary Nabb is K@D’s, M@D’s, AQMD’s, and IQABP’s father and at the time of the
hotline call he was the Appellant’s paramour, and they co-parented their @-month-old
daughter, QD.
At the time of the hotline call, the Appellant, MQ, JQ. and the Appellant’s other
children resided at 2316 West Farwell Avenue, Apartment 2W in Chicago, Illinois. Mr.
Nabb lived at a separate address; he did not have custody of his children, but he had
visitation rights.
On May 24, 2021, the Appellant and Mr. Nabb were in public and had an argument and
fight in front of their 8 children; they then went to the Appellant’s home and continued to
argue and physically fight in their children’s presence. The Appellant reported that Mr.
Nabb pulled her hair, banged her head on the floor, and caused her to scrape her knee. A
call was placed to the police, officers arrived, but the Appellant told officers that she did
not want to press charges; she would just obtain an order of protection.
10 The Appellant and Mr. Nabb had ongoing incidents of domestic violence in their
relationship since 2019. Officers had responded to numerous calls to service for domestic
incidents at the Appellant’s home, and officers’ body-worn cameras recorded statements
made by the Appellant at the time of the calls.
11 The Appellant admitted that she made “dumb decisions”; she dropped orders of protection
against Mr. Nabb; she dropped criminal charges against Mr. Nabb; and she continued her
relationship with Mr. Nabb despite their ongoing issues with domestic violence.
12. The Appellant admitted that her children and Mr. Nabb’s children witnessed numerous
incidents of domestic violence and said that Mr. Nabb’s children were traumatized.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, 325 5/1 et seq., (2019), defines neglected
and abused child and outlines the procedure regarding indicated reports and requests for
expungement. Department Rules 300 and 336 govern the subject matter and the process at the
administrative expungement hearing and have the force and effect of law. 89 Ill. Adm. Code 300
Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect, Appendix B, allegation of harm #60 — Environment Injurious
to the Health and Welfare of a Child by Neglect and 89 Ill. Adm. Code 336 Appeal of Child Abuse
and Neglect Investigation Findings. Based upon the applicable law, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following conclusions of law:
1 The Appellant is a parent and was a paramour as defined by ANCRA and Department Rule
300.
The Appellant is a perpetrator of child neglect as defined in allegation of harm #60 —
Environment Injurious to the Health and Welfare of a Child by Neglect, Rule 300 and
ANCRA.
The Department met the burden of proof as to allegation of harm #60 — Environment
Injurious to the Health and Welfare of a Child by Neglect.
ANALYSIS
The Department has promulgated an Administrative Rule, 89 Ill Adm. Code 336 Appeal
of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigation Findings which has the full force and effect of law and
requires the Department to “prove that a preponderance of the evidence supports the indicated
finding.” Rule 336.115(c)(2)(b)(2017). Environment Injurious to Health and Welfare (Neglect)
is defined in allegation of harm #60, Appendix B to Part 300 of the Department Rules and
Regulations, 89 Ill. Admin Code § 300 (2017) as: a child’s environment creates a likelihood of
harm to the child's health, physical well-being or welfare and that the likely harm to the child is
the result of a blatant disregard of parent or caretaker responsibilities [325 ILCS 5/3]. This
allegation shall be used when the type or extent of harm is undefined but the totality of
circumstances, including inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, leads a reasonable person to
believe that the child’s environment may likely cause harm to the child’s health, physical well-
being or welfare due to the parent’s or caretaker’s blatant disregard. Blatant disregard is defined
as an incident where the real, significant and imminent risk of harm would be so obvious to a
reasonable parent or caretaker that it is unlikely that a reasonable parent or caretaker would have
exposed the child to the danger without exercising precautionary measures to protect the child
from harm [325 ILCS 5/3]. This allegation of harm shall also be used when there are conditions
that create a real, significant and imminent likelihood of harm to the child’s health, well-being or
welfare (i.e., domestic violence, intimidation, or a child’s participation in a criminal act) and the
parent or caretaker blatantly disregarded his/her parental responsibility by failing to exercise
reasonable precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the imminent risk of moderate to severe
harm.
Department Rule 300 includes domestic violence as an example of a circumstance that may
create a real, significant, and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm. Department Rule 300
points to the Illinois Domestic Violence Act wherein domestic violence is defined as a crime in
which physical abuse, harassment, intimidation of a dependent, interference with personal liberty
or willful deprivation [750 ILCS 60/103(1) and (3)] is perpetrated by one family or household
member against another. Family or household members include spouses, former spouses, parents,
children, stepchildren and other persons related by blood or by present or prior marriage, persons
who share or formerly shared a common dwelling, persons who have or allegedly have a child in
common, persons who shared or allegedly share a blood relationship through a child, persons who
have or have had a dating or engagement relationship, persons with disabilities and their personal
assistants and caregivers as defined in Section 12-4.4a of the Criminal Code of 2012 [720 ILCS
5/12-4.4a]. [720 ILCS 5/12-0.1]. An incident of past or current domestic violence may qualify for
an allegation of environment injurious if the domestic violence creates a real, significant, and
imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to the child's health, physical well-being, or welfare,
and the parent or caregiver has failed to exercise reasonable precautionary measures to prevent or
mitigate the risk of harm to the child. Domestic violence is also referred to as "intimate partner
violence". The adult victim of domestic violence, who is the non-offending parent or caregiver, is
presumed to not be neglectful or to have created an environment injurious to the child so long as
he or she has exercised precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the real, significant, and
imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to the child.
ANCRA defines a neglected child as: any child who is subjected to an environment which
is injurious insofar as (i) the child's environment creates a likelihood of harm to the child's health,
physical well-being, or welfare and (ii) the likely harm to the child is the result of a blatant
disregard of parent or caretaker responsibilities. Furthermore, it is settled law in Illinois that
neglect is the failure to exercise the care that the circumstances justly demand. Neglect embraces
willful as well as unintentional disregard of duty. Neglect takes its content from specific
circumstances, and its meaning varies as the context of surrounding circumstances changes.
People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 411 Ill. 618 (1952), In the Interest of M.Z., a Minor, 294
Il. App.3d 581 (1 Dist. 1998).
In this case, on July 29, 2021, the Department investigator spoke to the Appellant who said
that the allegations against her are false; she never stabbed Mr. Nabb; she never argued or fought
with Mr. Nabb in front of their children; and Mr. Nabb never destroyed any of her property. The
Appellant told the Department investigator that she argued with Mr. Nabb, but it never got
physical, but she called the police on Mr. Nabb once because he would not let her leave after an
argument, and he took her car keys. The Appellant said that she believes the report was made
against her by Mr. Nabb’s ex-girlfriend, Cynthia, because Mr. Nabb testified against Cynthia in a
court case involving Cynthia and Cynthia’s boyfriend.' On September 27, 2021, the Department
investigator again spoke to the Appellant who said that she recently had an incident with Mr. Nabb.
The Appellant said that she filed a police report because Mr. Nabb tried to come into her home
without her permission; he hit her in the face; and he pulled her hair. The Appellant told the
Department investigator that her children did not see the incident, but they saw the police present
at their home afterwards. The Appellant was advised to seek an order of protection to protect
herself and her children from Mr. Nabb.? On September 28, 2021, an emergency order of
protection was entered against Mr. Nabb; the order remained in effect until October 19, 2021.3 On
October 19, 2021, a plenary order of protection was entered; the order remained in effect until
April 19, 2022.4
On July 29, 2021, the Department investigator spoke to several of the Appellant’s and Mr.
Nabb’s children. The Appellant’s then@ year-old son, M@D DEBE, told the Department
' DCFS Exhibit #4, page 52.
2 DCFS Exhibit #4, page 65.
3 Appellant Exhibit #2.
4 Appellant Exhibit #3.
investigator that his mom does not fight; he has heard them argue before but never to the point
where Mr. Nabb or his mom are destroying the house and fighting. M@D was asked if the other
children had seen anything and told him, and he responded in the negative. MQ said that he
was not aware of any incident in which the police came to their home. va said that Mr. Nabb
did not live with them, and his other children are rarely in their home.° The Department investigator
spoke to ther year-old M@DNODwho said that she has never seen her dad fight anyone and
she denied ever feeling unsafe with her father.° The Department investigator spoke to then@year-
old KQIDN@P who said that they do not go to the Appellant’s home often and she never saw her
father and the Appellant fight.’ On August 26, 2021, the Department investigator spoke to then
Pryear-ota ae No the Department investigator asked AQ if she ever saw her father
and the Appellant fight and as noted in the investigative file, A@¥ said, “yes, they argue all the
time and it is funny”. AB: 216 that she saw the Appellant and Mr. Nabb argue once but she
has never seen them fight. AQ aid that she has never seen her father hit anyone. When asked
if any of the other kids have made an outcry to her, A@ said that she is “sure that the MD
27 8
has seen something mayb: en.
The Department entered several exhibits of body-worn camera videos taken when officers
responded to the Appellant’s home for domestic violence disturbances. Department Exhibit #1
showed video footage from November 16, 2020, where the Appellant can be seen and heard telling
officers that every time Mr. Nabb has hit her in the past, she called her son’s father. The Appellant
told officers that she called her son’s father right before they arrived. The Appellant told officers
that she woke her children up to tell them that her windshield was broken and “what child should
5 DCFS Exhibit #4, page 55,
® DCFS Exhibit #4, page 56
7 DCES Exhibit #4, page 57.
8 DCFS Exhibit #4, page 63.
10
wake up to that”. The Appellant told officers that she thinks Mr. Nabb uses cocaine and takes pills.
The Appellant reported to officers that Mr. Nabb mistreated her, and she feared Mr. Nabb. The
Appellant was given instructions on how to get a warrant and an order of protection against Mr.
Nabb. The Appellant told the officer that the incidents with Mr. Nabb began last year, and she said
that she had a copy of the police reports that were made against him.
Department Exhibit #2 showed video footage from April 22, 2021, where the Appellant
can be seen and heard telling officers that she heard someone trying to enter her home, she opened
the back door and saw Mr. Nabb walking to his truck. The Appellant said that Mr. Nabb threatened
the occupants in her home including her sons. The Appellant told officers that Mr. Nabb “talked
shit to all of her family members including her kids” and he pushed her down causing her to slide
on the cement. The Appellant showed officers injuries on her back and arm. The Appellant told
officers that Mr. Nabb risked her sons’ safety, so she was “not going to drop the case anymore”.
The Appellant told the officers that she “has been dropping so many cases against him”. The
Appellant told officers that she is not stupid but she “has been making really dumb choices, that’s
all”. The Appellant told officers that Mr. Nabb is a danger to her daughter.
Department Exhibit #3 showed footage from May 24, 2021, where the Appellant can be
seen and heard telling officers that Mr. Nabb would not leave again, and he scraped her knee. The
Appellant told officers that she and Mr. Nabb had just returned from a bar-b-que on the lakefront;
she and Mr. Nabb got into an argument at the bar-b-que with their 8 children present and he kicked
over the grill; they each took some of the kids to her apartment; he wanted to continue to argue
and it got physical pretty quickly because she asked him to leave and he did not want to leave. The
Appellant told officers that they ended up fighting in the living room; Mr. Nabb scraped her knee,
pulled her hair, and banged her head on the floor. Then @year-old M@EED an be seen sitting
11
down directly in front of the camera as his mother, the Appellant, explained what happened to
officers. Officers asked MQ if this was the first time that this happened, and Marshall shook
his head no and said it happened before. MQ told officers that Mr. Nabb is in and out of their
home and police reports were made previously. The Appellant also told officers that this is not the
first time that this has happened. The Appellant told officers that she did not want to press charges,
but she wanted to get an order of protection. The Appellant told officers that their argument
occurred in front of her kids; the Appellant walked away; and M@Dzave officers information
about Mr. Nabb. The Appellant returned with an iron and told officers that Mr. Nabb threw the
iron at her; the iron cracked; and the iron almost hit her head. A baby can be heard crying and a
younger male child can be seen walking across the camera as the Appellant told officers that Mr.
Nabb also broke her television. As the Appellant spoke to officers, she heard a call coming over
the police radio detailing her call to 911; the dispatcher can be heard saying that Ms. Bhatti called
and said that she was attacked by her children’s father, and they are all crying and scared. The
Appellant told officers that Mr. Nabb’s children were traumatized because he wouldn’t leave. The
Appellant told officers that she hit Mr. Nabb back in self-defense and added “I don’t care; he keeps
doing this to me in front of my kids”. The Appellant told officers that she made reports before and
said, “do you know how many times I have dropped these cases? They were going to send him to
jail for three years, and he begged me to drop charges”. The Appellant told officers that Mr. Nabb
caused $30,000 worth of damage to her cars and he flattened the tires on a rental car that she was
driving. The Appellant told officers that Mr. Nabb “just keeps doing this; he has no fucking soul”.
The Appellant told officers that she knew how to obtain an order of protection because she had
one on Mr. Nabb, but he begged her to drop it, so she dropped it. The Appellant told officers that
she had Mr. Nabb locked up previously for three days because of a domestic incident and he stole
12
her car. The Appellant told officers that prior to Mr. Nabb leaving her home, he threatened her by
saying that he was going to have his other children’s mother came to her home to beat her up. The
police report and officers’ testimony were consistent with what is seen and heard in the body-wom
camera videos.”
The Appellant testified that there have been incidents of domestic violence between her
and Mr. Nabb since mid-June 2019. The Appellant testified that in June or July 2019, Mr. Nabb
choked her and hit the hood of her car; in September 2019, Mr. Nabb caused a big scene, she
injured her finger, she broke up with him but later found out that she was pregnant. The Appellant
admitted that she initially denied that there was domestic violence in her relationship, but she later
told the investigator about it. The Appellant testified that she maintained a relationship with Mr.
Nabb after the incidents of domestic violence and after she obtained an order of protection against
him. The Appellant testified that Mr. Nabb threatened to have people “jump her”; he damaged
rental cars; and he “busted windows”. The Appellant and her father, Muhammed Israil, testified
about protective measures that were taken in June or July 2021; these measures included changing
the locks on the Appellant’s apartment and having cameras installed.
The Appellant called Margaret Hefty to testify. Ms. Hefty has a lengthy career in the field
of domestic violence survivor advocacy, education, and services. Ms. Hefty met with the Appellant
twice; and she authored a report which was admitted at hearing.!° Ms. Hefty’s report details
numerous incidents of domestic violence between the Appellant and Mr. Nabb from 2019-2022.
Ms. Hefty detailed how the Appellant continued to have a relationship with Mr. Nabb after
numerous incidents of emotional abuse, physical domestic violence, threats, police intervention,
Mr. Nabb’s drug use, and criminal charges against Mr. Nabb. Ms. Hefty detailed how Mr. Nabb
° Appellant Exhibit #1.
10 Appellant Exhibit #5.
13
often took the Appellant’s cell phone from her and praised the Appellant for getting a landline
phone after Mr. Nabb moved into the Appellant’s home. Ms. Hefty noted that having a landline
phone allowed the Appellant to make calls for help if she needed to; and Ms. Hefty noted that the
Appellant decided to get a landline phone “for child safety and coincidently it helped her during
abusive incidents with Zach”. As noted in the report, the Appellant admitted to Ms. Hefty that due
to his threats, she was worried that Mr. Nabb might take JG way from her and there were
times that the Appellant refused to allow Mr. Nabb to have contact with J@jjjdue to his
escalated state. Then in May 2021, Mr. Nabb again became physically abusive with the Appellant
and police were called to the Appellant’s home. As noted in the report, despite this, the Appellant
continued her relationship with Mr. Nabb because he promised her that he would never hurt her
again. The Appellant told Ms. Hefty that Mr. Nabb continued to threaten her and there was another
incident of domestic violence on September 25, 2021, in which Mr. Nabb repeatedly punched the
Appellant and pulled her hair. After this incident, the Appellant obtained a no unlawful contact
order against Mr. Nabb. It is further noted in the report that on November 29, 2021, Mr. Nabb was
at the Appellant’s home for visitation with J@. he strangled the Appellant, and was charged
with a violation of the order of protection.
Ms. Hefty highlighted that at times the Appellant felt ashamed, blamed, manipulated,
guilty, and she wanted her daughter to have a relationship with her father. Ms. Hefty opined that
the Appellant prioritized her children’s safety noting that, “during incidents where Zach would
become abusive, Jasmine would tell the children in the house to leave the room, or she would lead
Zach away from them. Ms. Hefty further noted that “if one of her kids would walk in the room,
she would tell them to leave and call the police. She wanted to protect them and keep them away
from the argument”. Ms. Hefty opined that the Appellant was a victim of domestic violence; the
14
Appellant exercised reasonable precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the risk of harm to
her children and to Mr. Nabb’s children; and the Appellant was not neglectful.
This ALJ summarily rejects Ms. Hefty’s conclusions as they were largely undermined and
contradicted by the evidence presented at hearing. For example, the evidence showed that the
Appellant was not isolated by Mr. Nabb; the Appellant had a viable support system; and the
Appellant was not financially dependent on Mr. Nabb. Ms. Hefty improperly considered these as
well as other factors in making her final conclusions. Ms. Hefty also characterized the Appellant
as a victim of domestic violence and the Appellant argued that she is not responsible for the
injurious environment because she was the victim of domestic violence. In light of the evidence
presented, it can be argued the Appellant may have been the victim in some of the incidents, but it
is also clear that the Appellant initiated some of the arguments which led to physical altercations
and on occasion was more of a mutual combatant than a victim. Under the Department’s definition
for allegation of harm #60, the adult victim of domestic violence, who is the non-offending parent
or caregiver, is “presumed to not be neglectful or to have created an environment injurious to the
child so long as he or she has exercised precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the real,
significant and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to the child.” Rule 300, Appendix B.
This ALJ notes that even if Appellant is considered an adult victim of domestic violence, the
Department rebutted the presumption with evidence that Appellant did not exercise reasonable
precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the risk of harm to the children when she repeatedly
resumed her relationship with Mr. Nabb and repeatedly exposed the children to Mr. Nabb and his
ongoing violent behavior.
Given the facts of this case, it is this ALJ’s finding that the Appellant’s actions created an
environment in which there was a likelihood of harm to K@s, MD's. MQED’s. “QB's.
15
and J@@§D ’s health, physical well-being, and welfare and that the likely harm to the children was
the result of a blatant disregard of the Appellant’s parental responsibilities. In looking at the totality
of circumstances in this case, the real, significant, and imminent risk of harm to K@, VaD.
MQ. AGB. 204 GBD would be so obvious to a reasonable parent or caretaker that it is
unlikely that a reasonable parent or caretaker would have exposed them to the danger without
exercising reasonable precautionary measures to protect them from harm. This ALJ rejects the
contention that the Appellant exercised reasonable precautionary measures to protect the involved
children from the risk of harm. The Appellant clearly continued her relationship with Mr. Nabb
for over three years despite numerous and persistent serious incidents of domestic violence. The
Appellant admitted that she repeatedly dropped criminal charges and orders of protection against
Mr. Nabb; she.spent time with Mr. Nabb when an order of protection was in place; and she
continuously allowed Mr. Nabb into her home around her and her children despite ongoing and
repeated incidents of domestic violence. From the evidence presented, it is clear that MQ was
well-aware of the ongoing incidents of domestic violence between his mother and Mr. Nabb even
though he told the Department investigator otherwise. ap can be seen sitting right next to
his mother in the body-worn camera video taken on May 24, 2021, as his mother detailed the
serious incidents of domestic violence that occurred that day. MEE 101d officers that this was
not the first time this happened. Furthermore, the Appellant admitted that incidents of domestic
violence between her and Mr. Nabb happened in front of her children as well as in front of Mr.
Nabb’s children. The Appellant getting a landline phone, leading her children to another room
when she and Mr. Nabb fought, leading Mr. Nabb away from her children, and telling her children
to call the police did not prevent or mitigate the imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to her
children and Mr. Nabb’s children. The Appellant’s children and Mr. Nabb’s children heard and
16
* .
witnessed numerous incidents of domestic violence; they witnessed the Appellant being injured;
they witnessed property damage; they heard and witnessed screaming, yelling, and arguing; and
they were repeatedly present as officers converged inside and outside of their home gathering
details regarding the ongoing incidents of domestic violence. Given the serious nature of the
ongoing domestic violence in this case, a reasonable parent or caretaker would have taken more
decisive steps to protect children from the dangers posed. These steps would have included
immediately ending the relationship with their violent partner, immediately changing the locks on
their doors, immediately separating themselves and their children from their violent partner, not
allowing their violent partner to live in their home, following through with criminal charges against
their violent partner, and immediately seeking and following orders of protection without
hesitation or delay. The Appellant conceded that she made poor choices, and it is clear from the
evidence presented that these choices subjected her children and Mr. Nabb’s children to years of
witnessing arguments, physical fights, and police involvement and placed them at real and
significant risk of imminent harm when in the presence of the violence. Given the evidence
presented in this case, it is this ALJ’s finding that there was sufficient evidence to justify the
indicated finding against the Appellant for allegation of harm #60 — Environment Injurious to
Health and Welfare by Neglect.
RECOMMENDATION
In applying the law to the facts in this case, the Administrative Law Judge must render a
reasonable decision based upon all the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence presented at
hearing supports an indicated finding of allegation of harm #60 — Environment Injurious to the Health
and Welfare of a Child by Neglect against the Appellant as to KQNQ@M@D NED. va
lap. sg NOD ana ‘ap @® Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge recommends
17
t \
the Director DENY the Appellant’s request that the indicated report be expunged from the State
Central Register.
DATE: September 27, 2023
Cormex. Love.
Administrative Law Judge
Illinois Department of Children and Family Services
18
Preview
Hearing Date: 4/22/2024 10:30 AM FILED Location: Court Room 2102 12/21/2023 11:48 PM Judge: Atkins, David B. IRIS Y. MARTINEZ CIRCUIT CLERK COOK COUNTY, IL 2023CH10201 Calendar, 16 25707805 2023CH10201 Exhibit 1 Illinois Department of Ss % a JB Pritzker Governor i Children & Family Services Marc D. Smith Director CERTIFIED MAIL October 3, 2023 Mackenzie Rastello Attorney at Law Jones Day 110 North Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Re: Jasmine Bhatti, SCR #2479430-A, DKT #2022-E-00305, AHU #55-9674 Dear Ms. Rastello: On August 23, 2023, the Department completed a hearing to consider your client’s request for expunction of information pertaining to the following allegation: ALLEGATION OF HARM #60 - ENVIRONMENT INJURIOUS The Administrative Law Judge listened to the testimony, reviewed the facts of the case, and determined that the indicated finding has been supported by a preponderance of the evidence for allegation of harm #60. Additionally, the Administrative Law Judge made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that I adopt and incorporate into my decision. Specifically, the Administrative Law Judge recommended, and I concur, that your client’s request for expunction of the record of allegation of harm #60 be DENIED. This letter is the final administrative decision. If your client is not satisfied, she may seek judicial review of this decision under the Administrative Review Law, 735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq., by filing a complaint for administrative review in the circuit court. The complaint for administrative review must be filed within 35 days of the date this decision was served on you. This decision was served on you when it was deposited in the United States mail on October 3, 2023. Very truly yours, Mare D. Smith Enclosure ce: Carmen Love, Administrative Law Judge Tamela Atwood, Deputy Director-SCR Elizabeth Butler, Department Representative Trista Cox, SPSA-SCR Carol Melton, Chief Administrative Law Judge Maria Miller, Deputy Bureau Chief of Child Protection and SCR SAFETY SAFETY FIRST ALWAYS, Office of the Director 406 E. Monroe Street + Springfield, Illinois 62701 217-785-2509 www2.illinois.gov/DCFS . e CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE |,_ S$ Ocampo certify that | served a copy of the attached Final Administrative Decision / Final Order, to the addressee by depositing the same in the United States mail by certified mail with proper postage prepaid and properly addressed _ 10/03/2023 _. Certified # 4489 0090 O02? &52b 3013 Ob STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS UNIT IN THE MATTER OF DKT# 2022-E-00305 Jasmine Bhatti AHU# 55-9674 SCR# 2479430-A Appellant OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE INTRODUCTION On December 16, 2021, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (hereinafter “Department”) determined that credible evidence supported an indicated finding of allegation of harm #60 — Environment Injurious to the Health and Welfare of a Child by Neglect against Jasmine Bhatti (hereinafter “Appellant”) as to her sonMGR DED (hereinafter “V@EED”) born GERD cr daughter 1D ® (hereinafter “QD bo QD @D., and her paramour’s daughters KIN] (hereinafter “QP”) born TD MED NOD (hereinafter “VQ ) born QED, 20d AGED NBD rereinafter QD’) bo QHD. on August 23, 2023, the Department completed an administrative hearing via WebEx before Administrative Law Judge Carmen Love in Chicago, Illinois pursuant to Paragraph 5/7.16 of the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act (hereinafter “ANCRA”), 325 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (2019) which provides that a subject of a report shall have the right to a hearing within the Department to determine whether the record of the report should be amended or expunged on the grounds that it is inaccurate or it is being maintained in a manner inconsistent with ANCRA. Appellant seeks expunction of the indicated report from the State Central Register on the grounds that the allegation is inaccurate. ISSUE The issue before the Administrative Law Judge was whether the Appellant’s indicated finding of child neglect, specifically allegation of harm #60 — Environment Injurious to the Health and Welfare of a Child by Neglect should continue to be maintained on the State Central Register, or whether the indicated report is inaccurate and should be expunged. The Administrative Law Judge finds that a preponderance of the evidence supports the indicated finding of allegation of harm #60 — Environment Injurious to the Health and Welfare of a Child by Neglect. PERSONS PRESENT AT THE HEARING Parties of record and present via WebEx at the proceeding were: Department of Children and Family Services, represented by Elizabeth Butler, litigation attorney; and Jasmine Bhatti, Appellant represented by Mackenzie Rastello, Nia Mack, and Elsa Andrianifahanana. Also present at the hearing were: Angela Moncada, Investigator Supervisor, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Child Protection Division. Colton Sodt, Police Officer, Chicago Police Department. Donald Boardman, Police Officer, Chicago Police Department. Deborah Vance, mother of Zachary Nabb. Elias Abudayeh, Police Officer, Chicago Police Department. Mohammad Israil, Appellant’s father. Margaret Hefty, Associate Director, Sarah’s Inn. 10. Carmen Love, Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter “ALJ”). EXHIBITS The following exhibits were entered into evidence at hearing and are hereby incorporated into the record: 1 DCFS Exhibit #1, Chicago Police Department body camera footage from November 16, 2020. Admitted over Appellant objection. DCFS Exhibit #2, Chicago Police Department body camera footage from April 22, 2021. Admitted over Appellant objection. DCFS Exhibit #3, Chicago Police Department body camera footage from May 24, 2021. Admitted over Appellant objection. DCFS Exhibit #4, investigative file for SCR #2479430-A. Admitted by agreement. Appellant Exhibit #1, Chicago Police Department Police Report, report number JE 241672, May 24, 2021, 2 pages. Admitted by agreement. Appellant Exhibit #2, Judicial Notice taken of Order of Protection, case number 210P77854, September 28, 2021, 12 pages. Admitted by agreement. Appellant Group Exhibit #3, email from the Appellant to D. Jamison, November 23, 2021, 1 page, and Judicial Notice taken of Order of Protection, case number 210P77854, October 19, 2021, 4 pages. Admitted by agreement. Appellant Exhibit #4, Margaret Hefty’s resume, 2 pages. Admitted by agreement. 9. Appellant Exhibit #5, report by Margaret Hefty April 3, 2023, 15 pages. Admitted over Department’s objection. BACKGROUND On June 1, 2021, a hotline call was placed indicating that the Appellant and her boyfriend, Zachary Nabb, fought in front of their children “all the time” and the Appellant called the police on Mr. Nabb “all the time”. FINDINGS OF FACT It is within the province of the ALJ to determine the credibility of the witnesses, resolve disputed questions of fact, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. Finik v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, 171 Ml.App.3d 125, 524 N.E.2d 1148, 1212 Ill.Dec. 100 (1* Dist. 1988). After carefully reviewing all the evidence, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following findings of fact: 1 Kqunee: a female minor born QED. and at the time of the hotline call she wa@years old. MEBvN@ is a female minor born QED, and at the time of the hotline call shewa@ycars old. M@ED GED is 2 male minor bom GED. and at the time of the hotline call he wa: years old. AGED N@Bs 2 female minor born QD, and at the time of the hotline call she was@> years old. At the time of the hotline call, M@iiwas a youth in the care of the Department. > N@Bis a female minor born QED, and at the time of the hotline call she was@months old. The Appellant is M@p’s and J@P’s mother. Zachary Nabb is K@D’s, M@D’s, AQMD’s, and IQABP’s father and at the time of the hotline call he was the Appellant’s paramour, and they co-parented their @-month-old daughter, QD. At the time of the hotline call, the Appellant, MQ, JQ. and the Appellant’s other children resided at 2316 West Farwell Avenue, Apartment 2W in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Nabb lived at a separate address; he did not have custody of his children, but he had visitation rights. On May 24, 2021, the Appellant and Mr. Nabb were in public and had an argument and fight in front of their 8 children; they then went to the Appellant’s home and continued to argue and physically fight in their children’s presence. The Appellant reported that Mr. Nabb pulled her hair, banged her head on the floor, and caused her to scrape her knee. A call was placed to the police, officers arrived, but the Appellant told officers that she did not want to press charges; she would just obtain an order of protection. 10 The Appellant and Mr. Nabb had ongoing incidents of domestic violence in their relationship since 2019. Officers had responded to numerous calls to service for domestic incidents at the Appellant’s home, and officers’ body-worn cameras recorded statements made by the Appellant at the time of the calls. 11 The Appellant admitted that she made “dumb decisions”; she dropped orders of protection against Mr. Nabb; she dropped criminal charges against Mr. Nabb; and she continued her relationship with Mr. Nabb despite their ongoing issues with domestic violence. 12. The Appellant admitted that her children and Mr. Nabb’s children witnessed numerous incidents of domestic violence and said that Mr. Nabb’s children were traumatized. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, 325 5/1 et seq., (2019), defines neglected and abused child and outlines the procedure regarding indicated reports and requests for expungement. Department Rules 300 and 336 govern the subject matter and the process at the administrative expungement hearing and have the force and effect of law. 89 Ill. Adm. Code 300 Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect, Appendix B, allegation of harm #60 — Environment Injurious to the Health and Welfare of a Child by Neglect and 89 Ill. Adm. Code 336 Appeal of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigation Findings. Based upon the applicable law, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following conclusions of law: 1 The Appellant is a parent and was a paramour as defined by ANCRA and Department Rule 300. The Appellant is a perpetrator of child neglect as defined in allegation of harm #60 — Environment Injurious to the Health and Welfare of a Child by Neglect, Rule 300 and ANCRA. The Department met the burden of proof as to allegation of harm #60 — Environment Injurious to the Health and Welfare of a Child by Neglect. ANALYSIS The Department has promulgated an Administrative Rule, 89 Ill Adm. Code 336 Appeal of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigation Findings which has the full force and effect of law and requires the Department to “prove that a preponderance of the evidence supports the indicated finding.” Rule 336.115(c)(2)(b)(2017). Environment Injurious to Health and Welfare (Neglect) is defined in allegation of harm #60, Appendix B to Part 300 of the Department Rules and Regulations, 89 Ill. Admin Code § 300 (2017) as: a child’s environment creates a likelihood of harm to the child's health, physical well-being or welfare and that the likely harm to the child is the result of a blatant disregard of parent or caretaker responsibilities [325 ILCS 5/3]. This allegation shall be used when the type or extent of harm is undefined but the totality of circumstances, including inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, leads a reasonable person to believe that the child’s environment may likely cause harm to the child’s health, physical well- being or welfare due to the parent’s or caretaker’s blatant disregard. Blatant disregard is defined as an incident where the real, significant and imminent risk of harm would be so obvious to a reasonable parent or caretaker that it is unlikely that a reasonable parent or caretaker would have exposed the child to the danger without exercising precautionary measures to protect the child from harm [325 ILCS 5/3]. This allegation of harm shall also be used when there are conditions that create a real, significant and imminent likelihood of harm to the child’s health, well-being or welfare (i.e., domestic violence, intimidation, or a child’s participation in a criminal act) and the parent or caretaker blatantly disregarded his/her parental responsibility by failing to exercise reasonable precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the imminent risk of moderate to severe harm. Department Rule 300 includes domestic violence as an example of a circumstance that may create a real, significant, and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm. Department Rule 300 points to the Illinois Domestic Violence Act wherein domestic violence is defined as a crime in which physical abuse, harassment, intimidation of a dependent, interference with personal liberty or willful deprivation [750 ILCS 60/103(1) and (3)] is perpetrated by one family or household member against another. Family or household members include spouses, former spouses, parents, children, stepchildren and other persons related by blood or by present or prior marriage, persons who share or formerly shared a common dwelling, persons who have or allegedly have a child in common, persons who shared or allegedly share a blood relationship through a child, persons who have or have had a dating or engagement relationship, persons with disabilities and their personal assistants and caregivers as defined in Section 12-4.4a of the Criminal Code of 2012 [720 ILCS 5/12-4.4a]. [720 ILCS 5/12-0.1]. An incident of past or current domestic violence may qualify for an allegation of environment injurious if the domestic violence creates a real, significant, and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to the child's health, physical well-being, or welfare, and the parent or caregiver has failed to exercise reasonable precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the risk of harm to the child. Domestic violence is also referred to as "intimate partner violence". The adult victim of domestic violence, who is the non-offending parent or caregiver, is presumed to not be neglectful or to have created an environment injurious to the child so long as he or she has exercised precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the real, significant, and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to the child. ANCRA defines a neglected child as: any child who is subjected to an environment which is injurious insofar as (i) the child's environment creates a likelihood of harm to the child's health, physical well-being, or welfare and (ii) the likely harm to the child is the result of a blatant disregard of parent or caretaker responsibilities. Furthermore, it is settled law in Illinois that neglect is the failure to exercise the care that the circumstances justly demand. Neglect embraces willful as well as unintentional disregard of duty. Neglect takes its content from specific circumstances, and its meaning varies as the context of surrounding circumstances changes. People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 411 Ill. 618 (1952), In the Interest of M.Z., a Minor, 294 Il. App.3d 581 (1 Dist. 1998). In this case, on July 29, 2021, the Department investigator spoke to the Appellant who said that the allegations against her are false; she never stabbed Mr. Nabb; she never argued or fought with Mr. Nabb in front of their children; and Mr. Nabb never destroyed any of her property. The Appellant told the Department investigator that she argued with Mr. Nabb, but it never got physical, but she called the police on Mr. Nabb once because he would not let her leave after an argument, and he took her car keys. The Appellant said that she believes the report was made against her by Mr. Nabb’s ex-girlfriend, Cynthia, because Mr. Nabb testified against Cynthia in a court case involving Cynthia and Cynthia’s boyfriend.' On September 27, 2021, the Department investigator again spoke to the Appellant who said that she recently had an incident with Mr. Nabb. The Appellant said that she filed a police report because Mr. Nabb tried to come into her home without her permission; he hit her in the face; and he pulled her hair. The Appellant told the Department investigator that her children did not see the incident, but they saw the police present at their home afterwards. The Appellant was advised to seek an order of protection to protect herself and her children from Mr. Nabb.? On September 28, 2021, an emergency order of protection was entered against Mr. Nabb; the order remained in effect until October 19, 2021.3 On October 19, 2021, a plenary order of protection was entered; the order remained in effect until April 19, 2022.4 On July 29, 2021, the Department investigator spoke to several of the Appellant’s and Mr. Nabb’s children. The Appellant’s then@ year-old son, M@D DEBE, told the Department ' DCFS Exhibit #4, page 52. 2 DCFS Exhibit #4, page 65. 3 Appellant Exhibit #2. 4 Appellant Exhibit #3. investigator that his mom does not fight; he has heard them argue before but never to the point where Mr. Nabb or his mom are destroying the house and fighting. M@D was asked if the other children had seen anything and told him, and he responded in the negative. MQ said that he was not aware of any incident in which the police came to their home. va said that Mr. Nabb did not live with them, and his other children are rarely in their home.° The Department investigator spoke to ther year-old M@DNODwho said that she has never seen her dad fight anyone and she denied ever feeling unsafe with her father.° The Department investigator spoke to then@year- old KQIDN@P who said that they do not go to the Appellant’s home often and she never saw her father and the Appellant fight.’ On August 26, 2021, the Department investigator spoke to then Pryear-ota ae No the Department investigator asked AQ if she ever saw her father and the Appellant fight and as noted in the investigative file, A@¥ said, “yes, they argue all the time and it is funny”. AB: 216 that she saw the Appellant and Mr. Nabb argue once but she has never seen them fight. AQ aid that she has never seen her father hit anyone. When asked if any of the other kids have made an outcry to her, A@ said that she is “sure that the MD 27 8 has seen something mayb: en. The Department entered several exhibits of body-worn camera videos taken when officers responded to the Appellant’s home for domestic violence disturbances. Department Exhibit #1 showed video footage from November 16, 2020, where the Appellant can be seen and heard telling officers that every time Mr. Nabb has hit her in the past, she called her son’s father. The Appellant told officers that she called her son’s father right before they arrived. The Appellant told officers that she woke her children up to tell them that her windshield was broken and “what child should 5 DCFS Exhibit #4, page 55, ® DCFS Exhibit #4, page 56 7 DCES Exhibit #4, page 57. 8 DCFS Exhibit #4, page 63. 10 wake up to that”. The Appellant told officers that she thinks Mr. Nabb uses cocaine and takes pills. The Appellant reported to officers that Mr. Nabb mistreated her, and she feared Mr. Nabb. The Appellant was given instructions on how to get a warrant and an order of protection against Mr. Nabb. The Appellant told the officer that the incidents with Mr. Nabb began last year, and she said that she had a copy of the police reports that were made against him. Department Exhibit #2 showed video footage from April 22, 2021, where the Appellant can be seen and heard telling officers that she heard someone trying to enter her home, she opened the back door and saw Mr. Nabb walking to his truck. The Appellant said that Mr. Nabb threatened the occupants in her home including her sons. The Appellant told officers that Mr. Nabb “talked shit to all of her family members including her kids” and he pushed her down causing her to slide on the cement. The Appellant showed officers injuries on her back and arm. The Appellant told officers that Mr. Nabb risked her sons’ safety, so she was “not going to drop the case anymore”. The Appellant told the officers that she “has been dropping so many cases against him”. The Appellant told officers that she is not stupid but she “has been making really dumb choices, that’s all”. The Appellant told officers that Mr. Nabb is a danger to her daughter. Department Exhibit #3 showed footage from May 24, 2021, where the Appellant can be seen and heard telling officers that Mr. Nabb would not leave again, and he scraped her knee. The Appellant told officers that she and Mr. Nabb had just returned from a bar-b-que on the lakefront; she and Mr. Nabb got into an argument at the bar-b-que with their 8 children present and he kicked over the grill; they each took some of the kids to her apartment; he wanted to continue to argue and it got physical pretty quickly because she asked him to leave and he did not want to leave. The Appellant told officers that they ended up fighting in the living room; Mr. Nabb scraped her knee, pulled her hair, and banged her head on the floor. Then @year-old M@EED an be seen sitting 11 down directly in front of the camera as his mother, the Appellant, explained what happened to officers. Officers asked MQ if this was the first time that this happened, and Marshall shook his head no and said it happened before. MQ told officers that Mr. Nabb is in and out of their home and police reports were made previously. The Appellant also told officers that this is not the first time that this has happened. The Appellant told officers that she did not want to press charges, but she wanted to get an order of protection. The Appellant told officers that their argument occurred in front of her kids; the Appellant walked away; and M@Dzave officers information about Mr. Nabb. The Appellant returned with an iron and told officers that Mr. Nabb threw the iron at her; the iron cracked; and the iron almost hit her head. A baby can be heard crying and a younger male child can be seen walking across the camera as the Appellant told officers that Mr. Nabb also broke her television. As the Appellant spoke to officers, she heard a call coming over the police radio detailing her call to 911; the dispatcher can be heard saying that Ms. Bhatti called and said that she was attacked by her children’s father, and they are all crying and scared. The Appellant told officers that Mr. Nabb’s children were traumatized because he wouldn’t leave. The Appellant told officers that she hit Mr. Nabb back in self-defense and added “I don’t care; he keeps doing this to me in front of my kids”. The Appellant told officers that she made reports before and said, “do you know how many times I have dropped these cases? They were going to send him to jail for three years, and he begged me to drop charges”. The Appellant told officers that Mr. Nabb caused $30,000 worth of damage to her cars and he flattened the tires on a rental car that she was driving. The Appellant told officers that Mr. Nabb “just keeps doing this; he has no fucking soul”. The Appellant told officers that she knew how to obtain an order of protection because she had one on Mr. Nabb, but he begged her to drop it, so she dropped it. The Appellant told officers that she had Mr. Nabb locked up previously for three days because of a domestic incident and he stole 12 her car. The Appellant told officers that prior to Mr. Nabb leaving her home, he threatened her by saying that he was going to have his other children’s mother came to her home to beat her up. The police report and officers’ testimony were consistent with what is seen and heard in the body-wom camera videos.” The Appellant testified that there have been incidents of domestic violence between her and Mr. Nabb since mid-June 2019. The Appellant testified that in June or July 2019, Mr. Nabb choked her and hit the hood of her car; in September 2019, Mr. Nabb caused a big scene, she injured her finger, she broke up with him but later found out that she was pregnant. The Appellant admitted that she initially denied that there was domestic violence in her relationship, but she later told the investigator about it. The Appellant testified that she maintained a relationship with Mr. Nabb after the incidents of domestic violence and after she obtained an order of protection against him. The Appellant testified that Mr. Nabb threatened to have people “jump her”; he damaged rental cars; and he “busted windows”. The Appellant and her father, Muhammed Israil, testified about protective measures that were taken in June or July 2021; these measures included changing the locks on the Appellant’s apartment and having cameras installed. The Appellant called Margaret Hefty to testify. Ms. Hefty has a lengthy career in the field of domestic violence survivor advocacy, education, and services. Ms. Hefty met with the Appellant twice; and she authored a report which was admitted at hearing.!° Ms. Hefty’s report details numerous incidents of domestic violence between the Appellant and Mr. Nabb from 2019-2022. Ms. Hefty detailed how the Appellant continued to have a relationship with Mr. Nabb after numerous incidents of emotional abuse, physical domestic violence, threats, police intervention, Mr. Nabb’s drug use, and criminal charges against Mr. Nabb. Ms. Hefty detailed how Mr. Nabb ° Appellant Exhibit #1. 10 Appellant Exhibit #5. 13 often took the Appellant’s cell phone from her and praised the Appellant for getting a landline phone after Mr. Nabb moved into the Appellant’s home. Ms. Hefty noted that having a landline phone allowed the Appellant to make calls for help if she needed to; and Ms. Hefty noted that the Appellant decided to get a landline phone “for child safety and coincidently it helped her during abusive incidents with Zach”. As noted in the report, the Appellant admitted to Ms. Hefty that due to his threats, she was worried that Mr. Nabb might take JG way from her and there were times that the Appellant refused to allow Mr. Nabb to have contact with J@jjjdue to his escalated state. Then in May 2021, Mr. Nabb again became physically abusive with the Appellant and police were called to the Appellant’s home. As noted in the report, despite this, the Appellant continued her relationship with Mr. Nabb because he promised her that he would never hurt her again. The Appellant told Ms. Hefty that Mr. Nabb continued to threaten her and there was another incident of domestic violence on September 25, 2021, in which Mr. Nabb repeatedly punched the Appellant and pulled her hair. After this incident, the Appellant obtained a no unlawful contact order against Mr. Nabb. It is further noted in the report that on November 29, 2021, Mr. Nabb was at the Appellant’s home for visitation with J@. he strangled the Appellant, and was charged with a violation of the order of protection. Ms. Hefty highlighted that at times the Appellant felt ashamed, blamed, manipulated, guilty, and she wanted her daughter to have a relationship with her father. Ms. Hefty opined that the Appellant prioritized her children’s safety noting that, “during incidents where Zach would become abusive, Jasmine would tell the children in the house to leave the room, or she would lead Zach away from them. Ms. Hefty further noted that “if one of her kids would walk in the room, she would tell them to leave and call the police. She wanted to protect them and keep them away from the argument”. Ms. Hefty opined that the Appellant was a victim of domestic violence; the 14 Appellant exercised reasonable precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the risk of harm to her children and to Mr. Nabb’s children; and the Appellant was not neglectful. This ALJ summarily rejects Ms. Hefty’s conclusions as they were largely undermined and contradicted by the evidence presented at hearing. For example, the evidence showed that the Appellant was not isolated by Mr. Nabb; the Appellant had a viable support system; and the Appellant was not financially dependent on Mr. Nabb. Ms. Hefty improperly considered these as well as other factors in making her final conclusions. Ms. Hefty also characterized the Appellant as a victim of domestic violence and the Appellant argued that she is not responsible for the injurious environment because she was the victim of domestic violence. In light of the evidence presented, it can be argued the Appellant may have been the victim in some of the incidents, but it is also clear that the Appellant initiated some of the arguments which led to physical altercations and on occasion was more of a mutual combatant than a victim. Under the Department’s definition for allegation of harm #60, the adult victim of domestic violence, who is the non-offending parent or caregiver, is “presumed to not be neglectful or to have created an environment injurious to the child so long as he or she has exercised precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the real, significant and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to the child.” Rule 300, Appendix B. This ALJ notes that even if Appellant is considered an adult victim of domestic violence, the Department rebutted the presumption with evidence that Appellant did not exercise reasonable precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the risk of harm to the children when she repeatedly resumed her relationship with Mr. Nabb and repeatedly exposed the children to Mr. Nabb and his ongoing violent behavior. Given the facts of this case, it is this ALJ’s finding that the Appellant’s actions created an environment in which there was a likelihood of harm to K@s, MD's. MQED’s. “QB's. 15 and J@@§D ’s health, physical well-being, and welfare and that the likely harm to the children was the result of a blatant disregard of the Appellant’s parental responsibilities. In looking at the totality of circumstances in this case, the real, significant, and imminent risk of harm to K@, VaD. MQ. AGB. 204 GBD would be so obvious to a reasonable parent or caretaker that it is unlikely that a reasonable parent or caretaker would have exposed them to the danger without exercising reasonable precautionary measures to protect them from harm. This ALJ rejects the contention that the Appellant exercised reasonable precautionary measures to protect the involved children from the risk of harm. The Appellant clearly continued her relationship with Mr. Nabb for over three years despite numerous and persistent serious incidents of domestic violence. The Appellant admitted that she repeatedly dropped criminal charges and orders of protection against Mr. Nabb; she.spent time with Mr. Nabb when an order of protection was in place; and she continuously allowed Mr. Nabb into her home around her and her children despite ongoing and repeated incidents of domestic violence. From the evidence presented, it is clear that MQ was well-aware of the ongoing incidents of domestic violence between his mother and Mr. Nabb even though he told the Department investigator otherwise. ap can be seen sitting right next to his mother in the body-worn camera video taken on May 24, 2021, as his mother detailed the serious incidents of domestic violence that occurred that day. MEE 101d officers that this was not the first time this happened. Furthermore, the Appellant admitted that incidents of domestic violence between her and Mr. Nabb happened in front of her children as well as in front of Mr. Nabb’s children. The Appellant getting a landline phone, leading her children to another room when she and Mr. Nabb fought, leading Mr. Nabb away from her children, and telling her children to call the police did not prevent or mitigate the imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to her children and Mr. Nabb’s children. The Appellant’s children and Mr. Nabb’s children heard and 16 * . witnessed numerous incidents of domestic violence; they witnessed the Appellant being injured; they witnessed property damage; they heard and witnessed screaming, yelling, and arguing; and they were repeatedly present as officers converged inside and outside of their home gathering details regarding the ongoing incidents of domestic violence. Given the serious nature of the ongoing domestic violence in this case, a reasonable parent or caretaker would have taken more decisive steps to protect children from the dangers posed. These steps would have included immediately ending the relationship with their violent partner, immediately changing the locks on their doors, immediately separating themselves and their children from their violent partner, not allowing their violent partner to live in their home, following through with criminal charges against their violent partner, and immediately seeking and following orders of protection without hesitation or delay. The Appellant conceded that she made poor choices, and it is clear from the evidence presented that these choices subjected her children and Mr. Nabb’s children to years of witnessing arguments, physical fights, and police involvement and placed them at real and significant risk of imminent harm when in the presence of the violence. Given the evidence presented in this case, it is this ALJ’s finding that there was sufficient evidence to justify the indicated finding against the Appellant for allegation of harm #60 — Environment Injurious to Health and Welfare by Neglect. RECOMMENDATION In applying the law to the facts in this case, the Administrative Law Judge must render a reasonable decision based upon all the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence presented at hearing supports an indicated finding of allegation of harm #60 — Environment Injurious to the Health and Welfare of a Child by Neglect against the Appellant as to KQNQ@M@D NED. va lap. sg NOD ana ‘ap @® Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge recommends 17 t \ the Director DENY the Appellant’s request that the indicated report be expunged from the State Central Register. DATE: September 27, 2023 Cormex. Love. Administrative Law Judge Illinois Department of Children and Family Services 18