1 

2020 IL App (5th) 200002-U 

NO. 5-20-0002 

IN THE 

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS 

FIFTH DISTRICT 

________________________________________________________________________ 

In re K.T.O., a Minor ) Appeal from the 

 ) Circuit Court of 

(The People of the State of Illinois, ) Marion County. 

 ) 

 Petitioner-Appellee, ) No. 18-JA-47 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

Jazmin A., ) Honorable 

 ) Ericka A. Sanders, 

 Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court. 

 Presiding Justice Welch and Justice Moore concurred in the judgment. 

 

 ORDER 

¶ 1 Held: The trial court’s determinations that Mother was unfit and that termination 

of parental rights was in the minor’s best interests were not contrary to the 

 manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 2 Respondent, Jazmin A. (Mother), appeals the judgment of the circuit court of 

Marion County terminating her parental rights to her minor child, K.T.O. For the following 

reasons, we affirm. 

¶ 3 J.J.O., born on March 10, 2015, and K.T.O., born on May 4, 2016, are the biological 

children of Mother. The biological father of the children is unknown. On November 29, 

NOTICE

Decision filed 05/06/20. The 

text of this decision may be 

changed or corrected prior to 

the filing of a Petition for 

Rehearing or the disposition of 

the same.

NOTICE

This order was filed under 

Supreme Court Rule 23 and 

may not be cited as precedent 

by any party except in the 

limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1).
2 

2017, Mother left J.J.O. and K.T.O., who were two years old and one year old respectively, 

in the care of A.C., a six-year-old. The record indicates the children were left alone for 

several hours. As night began to fall, A.C. became scared because it was dark and there 

were no lights on in the house. A.C. went outside, where she saw a man, subsequently 

identified as Robert Dillon, searching for something. After about 25 to 30 minutes, A.C. 

approached Dillon and asked to use his phone to call a teacher for help. A.C. called Kenya 

Stacey, A.C.’s former kindergarten teacher. A.C. told Stacey that A.C. was alone with two 

small children, in the dark. Stacey responded to the home where A.C. was babysitting. 

¶ 4 The next day, November 30, 2017, the Centralia Police Department received a 

report that J.J.O. and K.T.O. were not being properly supervised while in Mother’s care. 

For several months after the incident, the Illinois Department of Children and Family 

Services (DCFS) attempted periodic checks on the children, but was unable to locate them. 

On April 25, 2018, after Mother was arrested and detained for armed robbery, DCFS 

located the children and took them into protective custody. 

¶ 5 On April 26, 2018, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship for K.T.O., 

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

(Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3 (West 2018)) because (1) his environment was injurious to his 

welfare, in that Mother left K.T.O. in the care of a small child for several hours, and 

(2) Mother had several contacts with law enforcement during the previous five months and 

was incarcerated at the Marion County jail. A shelter care hearing was held the next day. 

Following the hearing, the trial court found there was probable cause to believe K.T.O. was 
3 

neglected, as defined by the Act, because his environment was injurious to his welfare. 

K.T.O. was removed from Mother’s custody, and temporary custody was given to DCFS. 

¶ 6 On September 19, 2018, the court adjudicated K.T.O. neglected, finding his 

environment was injurious to his welfare as defined by 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b), based on 

Mother leaving K.T.O. for several hours without adult supervision. On October 10, 2018, 

the court made K.T.O. a ward of the court. 

¶ 7 On August 14, 2019, the State filed an amended petition to terminate Mother’s 

parental rights to K.T.O. The State alleged that Mother was unfit because (1) she failed to 

protect K.T.O. from an environment injurious to his welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(g) (West 

2018); (2) she failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis 

for the removal of K.T.O. from Mother’s care during the nine-month period following the 

adjudication of neglect, specifically between September 20, 2018, and June 19, 2019 (750 

ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2018)); and (3) she failed to make reasonable progress toward 

the return of K.T.O. in the nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect, 

specifically between September 20, 2018, and June 19, 2019 (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii)

(West 2018)). 

¶ 8 On November 4, 2019, the court held a fitness hearing, and found by clear and 

convincing evidence that Mother was an unfit person for failing to make reasonable 

progress toward the return of K.T.O. in the nine-month period following the adjudication 

of neglect, between September 20, 2018, and June 20, 2019 (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii)

(West 2018)). On December 2, 2019, the court conducted the best interest hearing, after 
4 

which the court entered an order finding that it was in K.T.O.’s best interests that Mother’s 

parental rights be terminated. 

¶ 9 On appeal, Mother argues the trial court’s determinations that she was unfit and that 

the termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of K.T.O. were against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. 

¶ 10 Section 2-29 of the Act sets forth a two-step process for the involuntary termination 

of parental rights. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2018). First, the State must prove by clear 

and convincing evidence that the parent is an unfit person as defined by the Adoption Act 

(750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2018)). In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329, 337 (2010). If the trial court 

finds the parent to be unfit, the court must then determine whether the State has proven, by 

a preponderance of the evidence, that it is in the child’s best interest that parental rights be 

terminated. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2018); In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 367 (2004). 

During the second stage of the proceedings, the focus of the court’s scrutiny shifts from 

the rights of the parents to the best interests of the child. In re B.B., 386 Ill. App. 3d 686, 

697 (2008). 

¶ 11 The trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights involves factual findings and 

credibility assessments which, on review, are accorded great deference. In re M.J., 314 Ill. 

App. 3d 649, 655 (2000). On appeal, the trial court’s findings of parental unfitness and that 

termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interests will not be disturbed unless 

they are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re R.L., 352 Ill. App. 3d 985, 

998, 1001 (2004).
5 

¶ 12 Determination of Unfitness 

¶ 13 Here, the trial court concluded that the State had successfully proven one ground of 

unfitness against Mother, that Mother had failed to make reasonable progress toward the 

return of K.T.O. in the nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect, between 

September 20, 2018, and June 20, 2019 (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2018)).

“Reasonable progress” is an objective standard, and is based upon the amount of progress, 

as measured from the conditions existing at the time of removal. In re Jacorey, 2012 IL 

App (1st) 113427, ¶ 21. Reasonable progress requires a measurable or demonstrable 

movement toward the goal of reunification. In re Jacorey, 2012 IL App (1st) 113427, ¶ 21. 

A parent has made “reasonable progress” when the trial court can conclude that it will be 

able to return the child to parental custody in the near future. In re Jacorey, 2012 IL App 

(1st) 113427, ¶ 21. If a service plan has been established to correct the conditions that were 

the basis for the removal of the child from the parent, a “failure to make reasonable 

progress” includes a parent’s failure to substantially fulfill his obligations under the service 

plan. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m) (West 2018)). 

¶ 14 In this case, the condition that was the basis for the removal of K.T.O. from the 

home was that K.T.O. was in an environment that was injurious to his welfare. This finding 

was based on Mother’s failure to provided K.T.O. with adequate supervision because 

Mother left K.T.O., a one-year-old, in the care of a six-year-old for an extended period of 

time. Mother’s first service plan was created in July 2018, several months after K.T.O. 

went into the care of DCFS. Mother’s service plan was revisited in September 2018 and 

April 2019. Each of Mother’s service plans included the same tasks: (1) complete a mental 
6 

health assessment and follow any recommendations, (2) attend grief counseling to help her 

deal with the death of a child,

1

 (3) obtain appropriate housing, (4) maintain lawful 

employment, (5) complete a substance abuse assessment and follow any recommendations

made as a consequence of attending the assessment, and (6) attend and successfully 

complete a parenting class. 

¶ 15 The evidence in the record demonstrates that Mother failed to successfully complete 

any of the six goals in her service plan. Although Mother obtained a mental health 

assessment, she did not follow through with the recommendations made from the 

assessment by attending counseling sessions. Throughout the course of the case, Mother 

was homeless, frequently moving from place to place. The DCFS caseworker testified at 

the fitness hearing that throughout the case, she rarely knew of Mother’s whereabouts or 

contact information, and that Mother had failed to maintain consistent contact with the 

caseworker. Mother’s service plans required her to maintain lawful employment, yet 

Mother was only sporadically employed, and never provided the caseworker with any 

paystubs. While Mother attended some parenting classes in early 2019, she was dropped 

from the program after missing multiple sessions. The caseworker testified she did not 

know if Mother had maintained a sober lifestyle because Mother never completed a 

substance abuse assessment, and never submitted to any random drug tests. All of the 

evidence in the record demonstrates that Mother failed to make any measurable movement 

toward reunification. Based upon the evidence presented, the trial court’s finding that 

1

In August 2017, Mother lost an infant in an accidental, sleep-related “rollover” incident. 
7 

Mother was unfit for failing to make reasonable progress toward the return of K.T.O. 

during the nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect was not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 16 Determination of K.T.O.’s Best Interests 

¶ 17 Once a parent has been found to be unfit, the parent’s rights yield to the child’s best 

interest. In re Tashika F., 333 Ill. App. 3d 165, 170 (2002). Again, this court will not 

reverse the trial court’s determination as to the child’s best interests unless it is contrary to 

the manifest weight of the evidence. In re R.L., 352 Ill. App. 3d at 1001. 

¶ 18 The record clearly reveals Mother’s lack of progress to complete the objectives of 

her service plan. While Mother exercised her visitation with K.T.O., Mother was not 

always consistent, occasionally going through periods where she missed several of her 

scheduled visits. By contrast, K.T.O.’s needs are being met in his foster home, where he 

has been placed with his sister, J.J.O., for over a year. K.T.O. is integrated into his foster 

family, has adjusted to preschool, and his behavioral issues have improved. K.T.O. is 

bonded to his foster mother, and his foster mother wishes to adopt both K.T.O. and J.J.O. 

Based on the circumstances presented, the trial court’s determination that termination of 

Mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of K.T.O. was not contrary to the manifest 

weight of the evidence. 

¶ 19 CONCLUSION 

¶ 20 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Marion 

County. 
8 

¶ 21 Affirmed.