2023 IL App (4th) 220780-U 

NO. 4-22-0780 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

In re H.S., a Minor, 

(The People of the State of Illinois,

 Petitioner-Appellee,

v. 

Terry B., 

Respondent-Appellant). 

)

) 

) 

) 

)

) 

)

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of 

McDonough County 

No. 21JA9 

Honorable 

Heidi A. Benson, 

Judge Presiding. 

 

 JUSTICE DOHERTY delivered the judgment of the court. 

 Justices Turner and Steigmann concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court’s judgment finding respondent unfit and terminating his parental 

rights was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 2 Respondent Terry B. appeals from the trial court’s order finding him to be an unfit 

parent and terminating his parental rights as to the minor child H.S. (born in 2020). Respondent 

only challenges the trial court’s unfitness finding on appeal, arguing the judgment is against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In February 2020, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging 

the minor was neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile 

Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)). Respondent stipulated to the petition and H.S. 

FILED

January 31, 2023

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL

NOTICE

This Order was filed under 

Supreme Court Rule 23 and is 

not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1). 
- 2 - 

was adjudicated neglected in September 2020. H.S. was made a ward of the court following a 

dispositional hearing, where the court found respondent unfit. The minor’s biological mother, Erin 

W., was involved in these proceedings. The trial court’s judgments regarding unfitness and the 

best interest of the minor applied with equal force to Erin W. She separately pursued an appeal in 

In re H.S., 2022 IL App (4th) 220695-U, where we affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Id. ¶ 22. 

¶ 5 Among the services respondent was to complete under the dispositional order were 

the following: (1) execute all authorizations required; (2) notify the caseworker of changes in 

contact information or residence; (3) obtain and maintain safe and suitable housing that was clean 

and sanitary; (4) visit the minor and demonstrate appropriate parenting conduct; (5) complete a 

sex offender evaluation and follow all recommendations; (6) participate in and complete 

counseling to address past trauma; (7) complete domestic violence counseling; (8) complete a 

parenting class; and (9) complete two drug drops per month. 

¶ 6 The State filed a petition to terminate respondent’s parental rights in January 2022, 

alleging he was an unfit person pursuant to section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 

50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2020)) for failing to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor 

during the relevant nine-month period of April 1, 2021, through January 1, 2022. 

¶ 7 A fitness hearing followed in May 2022. Maria Leitner of FamilyCore was the 

caseworker in this matter. She testified that the primary reason for removal of the minor was Erin 

W.’s mental health issues. Erin W. was not completing services and was incarcerated at a time 

outside of the relevant time period. 

¶ 8 The secondary reason for the minor’s removal was environmental concerns. 

Respondent and Erin W. moved from a previous residence known to be unsuitable for the minor.

That residence did not have drywall, and there were also chickens and “lots of other animals” 
- 3 - 

living in the home. Leitner attempted but was unable to visit respondent’s new residence. She 

would schedule inspections, but Erin W. would cancel the appointments, claiming she would not 

be home or had another appointment. There were also reports that there were significant numbers 

of animals living in the home. Erin W. and respondent moved to Manito, Illinois. They were 

residing together since the beginning of the matter and at the time of the hearing. Leitner was not 

allowed to observe the home in Manito during the relevant time period despite her attempts to do 

so. No explicit reason was given why she could not visit the home, but it was “insinuated” the 

home was not appropriate for the minor. 

¶ 9 Respondent was required to participate in twice-monthly drug drops. During these 

proceedings, the frequency was reduced to once monthly. Respondent and Erin W. had drops on 

the same day, “So if she missed, he missed.” He only appeared for about half of the required drug 

drops. Respondent claimed the absences were a result of his conflicting work schedule. Leitner 

explained to respondent that missed tests resulted in a presumed positive. Leitner attempted to 

accommodate respondent by moving the location of the drug drops and by rescheduling them to 

coincide with court dates, to no avail. 

¶ 10 During the relevant period, respondent successfully completed counseling, a sex 

offender assessment with no recommended follow-up treatment, and domestic violence 

counseling, and he also signed consents. The sex offender assessment was entered into evidence.

The assessment noted that the evaluator did not mandate respondent to participate in sex offender 

treatment but included a list of concerns in the conclusion section of the report regarding scenarios 

that could elevate recidivism. Among the scenarios that could increase the chances of respondent 

reoffending were substance abuse and not participating in or completing a sex offender treatment 

program. The assessment found “little reason to believe that he poses a sexual risk to [H.S.]” 
- 4 - 

Leitner was aware of the nature of respondent’s previous sex offense, as it involved a minor under 

the age of seven. Respondent did not engage in further sex offender treatment. 

¶ 11 Respondent was employed throughout the period and completed a parenting class 

prior to the relevant time frame. Although respondent completed the parenting class, there were 

concerns that he did not retain the information presented in the class as he did not understand the 

appropriate timeline in which the minor should be developing. Respondent also did not change 

diapers at visitations and refused to do so. Erin W. and respondent explained “it was because of 

[his] sex offender status.” Another time respondent said it was because “he just didn’t do it.” 

Leitner concluded that on January 1, 2022, the agency was no closer to returning the minor to 

respondent’s care than it was on April 1, 2021. 

¶ 12 Respondent testified in his defense. He acknowledged that the home he and Erin 

W. originally resided in was unsafe for the minor, but he had been working towards fixing the 

issues with the new residence. As of the hearing, he was still making repairs. In discussing the 

repairs to the home in Manito, respondent testified that he had to replace portions of flooring, put 

down new carpet, fix holes in walls, put a new toilet in, and repair plumbing throughout. The home 

had a gas furnace, but it did not work. The home was heated with “electric heaters.” Respondent 

had three dogs living in the home and four or five cats that were mostly “outside animals.” 

Respondent claimed that Leitner had been inside the Manito residence during the relevant time 

period but could not remember when. 

¶ 13 The trial court entered an order finding respondent unfit. In delivering its judgment, 

the court noted the most significant concerns were Erin W.’s mental health issues, the 

environmental issues, and that Leitner was unable to observe the home. A best-interest hearing 
- 5 - 

ensued, and thereafter the trial court found it was in the best interest of the minor to terminate 

respondent’s parental rights. 

¶ 14 This appeal followed. 

¶ 15 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 16 Respondent argues that the trial court’s fitness determination was against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. He argues that he made reasonable progress during the relevant 

time period. The State counters that although respondent made some progress, the progress was 

insufficient to show that the minor could be returned to his care in the near future.

¶ 17 Section 2-29(2) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2020)) 

provides for a two-step process to involuntarily terminate parental rights. The State must first prove 

by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is “unfit” as contemplated in section 1(D) of 

the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2020)). In re N.G., 2018 IL 121939, ¶ 28. “A parent’s 

rights may be terminated if even a single alleged ground for unfitness is supported by clear and 

convincing evidence.” In re Gwynne P., 215 Ill. 2d 340, 349 (2005). A trial court’s finding of 

unfitness will not be overturned on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

In re M.I., 2016 IL 120232, ¶ 21. “ ‘A court’s decision regarding a parent’s fitness is against the 

manifest weight of the evidence only where the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent.’ ” Id.

(quoting Gwynne P., 215 Ill. 2d at 354). 

¶ 18 The court in this case found that respondent failed to make reasonable progress 

toward the return of the minor during the relevant nine-month period pursuant to section 

1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1 (D)(m)(ii) (West 2020)). 

“Reasonable progress is examined under an objective standard based upon 

the amount of progress measured from the conditions existing at the time 
- 6 - 

custody was taken from the parent. [Citation]. The benchmark for 

measuring a parent’s reasonable progress under section 1(D)(m) of the 

Adoption Act encompasses the parent’s compliance with the service plans 

and court’s directives in light of the condition that gave rise to the removal 

of the child and other conditions which later become known that would 

prevent the court from returning custody of the child to the parent. 

[Citation]. Reasonable progress exists when the trial court can conclude that 

progress being made by a parent to comply with directives given for the 

return of the minor is sufficiently demonstrable and of such a quality that 

the trial court will be able to order the minor returned to parental custody in 

the near future.” In re D.T., 2017 IL App (3d) 170120, ¶ 17. 

¶ 19 Respondent argues that he made reasonable progress towards remedying the 

environmental concerns because he changed residences during the relevant period. He also argues 

the trial court placed an undue emphasis on his missed drug drops, as the missed tests are a “red 

herring” where substance abuse was not the reason H.S. was removed from his care. Further, he 

takes issue with the trial court giving any weight to his reluctance to change the minor’s diapers. 

¶ 20 In determining respondent was unfit, the trial court found: 

“One of the parents’ attorneys, perhaps it was Mr. Thor, indicated that 

[respondents] tried. The Court agrees; they tried, but trying is efforts, and 

the petition was filed on progress, not efforts. 

Specifically with regard to mother, *** the most significant 

concerns were mother’s mental health and the environmental issues. With 
- 7 - 

regard to the two services aimed at mental health, counseling and the 

psychological, mother just abjectly failed at those. *** 

 *** 

With regard to letting [the] social worker into the home, there’s 

really—hundred percent of the evidence is social worker never got to be in 

the home during the nine-month period that we’re here in court on. And 

[Terry B.] testified as to why that was, and it appears that there were some 

pretty significant environmental concerns with regard to the housing 

situation at that time. And, again, [Terry B.] definitely made efforts to 

rectify the situation, but in the nine-month period that we are concerned 

with, the situation was not rectified and even by [Terry B.’s] testimony, the 

situation was not rectified. And the social worker certainly was not allowed 

in either home, Manito or Havana. 

With regard to visitation, the parents definitely made excellent 

efforts to keep up with the visitation. The Court’s concern with regard to 

visitation is that we have one parent who is refusing to do a pretty 

foundational, basic caretaking task of a young child, which is a diaper 

change, which then begs—because of his sex offender status, which then 

begs the question, first of all, how would he be able to take care of a young 

child with a very significant genetic disorder? Number two: Would he be 

able to do any bathing tasks? So that is very concerning. 

With regard to father specifically, the Court finds that he did 

complete his counseling. He did complete his parenting class; although, 
- 8 - 

completing the parenting class and implementing what you’ve learned are 

two different things. And the Court, again, would identify that having one 

parent refuse all toileting help is not a successful implementation of 

parenting. 

With regard to the sex offender assessment, the Court would note 

that the assessment did not recommend treatment, but did indicate that there 

might—may be concerns with regard to the propensity for re-offense if 

father had a substance abuse issue. Well, we don’t know if father has a 

substance abuse issue because we only have 50 percent of the data. 

So on the whole, the Court finds that we do not have progress 

towards reunification in the nine-month period of April 1st, 2021 through 

January 1st of 2022 and that the State has proven that by clear and 

convincing evidence.” 

¶ 21 The trial court focused on two issues in making its finding of unfitness: Erin W.’s 

unaddressed mental health issues and the condition of respondent’s home. More than two years 

after the minor was removed from respondent’s care, neither of those issues had been addressed. 

While respondent did move, the caseworker in this matter was unable to observe the home to 

determine whether it was suitable for the minor despite her repeated attempts to do so. Testimony 

during the hearing confirmed the caseworker’s suspicions that the reason she was not allowed to 

view the home was because it was not suitable for the minor. As of the fitness hearing, repairs to 

the home had not been completed, and heat in the home was provided by “electric heaters.” The 

environmental concerns that resulted in the removal of the minor from respondent’s care were not 

remediated.
- 9 - 

¶ 22 Further, despite completing the parenting class, respondent was unaware of the 

appropriate timeline in which the minor should be developing and would not change H.S.’s diapers 

at visits, raising concerns whether he would be able to care for the minor on his own. As the court 

pointed out, respondent was not implementing what was learned in the parenting class. Moreover, 

respondent was not complying with a court order requiring drug screens. One of the scenarios 

outlined in the sex offender assessment that could elevate respondent’s chances of recidivism was 

a substance abuse issue. The court opined that respondent’s lack of compliance with the screenings 

made it impossible to eliminate this consideration “because we only have 50 percent of the data.”

¶ 23 Respondent points to his completion of services and notes from Leitner in the case 

file that he was making progress as requiring reversal. We disagree. As the State points out, 

reasonable efforts is not the same as demonstrable movement towards the return of the minor in 

the near future. Based on the conditions that resulted in the removal of the minor from respondent’s 

care, and conditions that later became known to the court that would prevent returning custody to 

respondent, the court did not err in finding there was no reasonable progress towards the return of 

the minor to respondent’s care in the near future. 

¶ 24 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 25 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

¶ 26 Affirmed.