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 h er parental rights to h er 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 w ere 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 fa ll, A.C. became scared because it was dark and there were no lights on in the house

. A.C. went outsid e , 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. call ed Kenya Stacey , A.C.’s former kindergarten teach er . 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 D epartment 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 the m . 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 sectio n 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 h is 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 t rial court found there was probable cause to believe K.T.O. was3 neglected, as defined by the Act , because h is environment was injurious to h is welfare

. K.T.O. was removed from Mother’s custody, and temporary custody was given to DCFS. ¶ 6 On September 19, 2018, the cour t adjudicated K.T.O. neglected , finding h is envi ronment was injurious to h is welfare as defined by 7 05 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 am ended 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 h is 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 adj udication 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, after4 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 h er parental rights was in the best interest s of K.T.O. were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. ¶ 10 Section 2

- 29 of the Act sets fo r th 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 201 8); 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, 1 001 (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, be tween 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 servic e plan. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m) (West 2018)). ¶ 14 In this case, the condition that w as 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 h is 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. Mothe r’s service plan was revisited in September 2018 and April 2019. Each of Mother’s service plans included the same tasks: (1) complete a mental6 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 l awful 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 obtain ed 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

case worker. Mother’s service plans required her to maintain lawful employment, yet Mother was only s poradically 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 maintain ed 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 o f 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 Moth er’s lack of progress to complete the objectives of h er 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 h as been placed with h is sister , J.J.O., for over a year. K.T.O. is integrated into h is foster family, has adjusted to preschool, and his behavioral issues have improved. K.T.O. is bonded to his foster mother, and h is foster mother wishes to adopt both K.T.O. and J.J.O. Based on the circumstances presented, the t rial court’ s determination that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of K.T.O. wa s 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.