2023 IL App (4th) 230026-U 

NO. 4-23-0026 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

 

JUSTICE CAVANAGH delivered the judgment of the court.

 Justices Steigmann and Knecht concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the circuit court’s unfitness finding was 

not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 In July 2021, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of respondent, 

Derek S., as to his minor child, P.S. (born in April 2015). In September 2022, the circuit court 

granted the State’s petition and terminated respondent’s parental rights. (P.S.’s mother’s parental 

rights were also terminated. However, she is not a party to this appeal.) Respondent appeals the 

unfitness finding, arguing it is against the manifest weight of the evidence given the progress he 

asserts he made in his required services. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND 

¶ 4 On July 3, 2018, the State filed a petition seeking the adjudication of the minor as 

neglected under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b)

In re P.S., a Minor 

(The People of the State of Illinois, 

Petitioner-Appellee,

v. 

Derek S., 

Respondent-Appellant). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Tazewell County

No. 18JA122 

Honorable 

David A. Brown, 

Judge Presiding.

FILED

May 15, 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 - 

(West 2018)). In particular, the State alleged the parents had ongoing domestic violence and 

substance abuse issues. On October 26, 2018, P.S.’s parents stipulated to the allegations in the 

petition. On January 3, 2019, the circuit court adjudicated the minor neglected due to being in an 

environment injurious to his welfare. In a separate dispositional order, the court adjudged the 

parents unfit to care for the minor for reasons other than financial circumstances alone, made him 

a ward of the court, and placed custody and guardianship with the Illinois Department of Children 

and Family Services (DCFS). 

¶ 5 On July 19, 2021, the State filed a petition to terminate parental rights. The State 

alleged respondent was unfit for failing to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor 

in the nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect spanning October 15, 2020, to July 

15, 2021, pursuant to the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2020)). 

¶ 6 On June 23, 2022, the circuit court commenced the hearing on the State’s petition. 

We summarize the testimony as pertinent to the instant appeal. 

¶ 7 Margaret Kelch, the caseworker and later the supervisor for the parents’ case during 

the nine-month period at issue, testified regarding the array of services required for each parent. 

Such services included obtaining substance abuse assessments and undergoing any recommended 

treatment, parenting classes and individual counseling, and, as to respondent, anger management 

counseling. The court admitted the service plans dated January 25, 2021, and July 6, 2021, into 

evidence. 

¶ 8 Kelch also testified regarding respondent’s behavior during her interactions with 

him. In or around October or November 2020, Kelch referred the minor for counseling. While 

speaking with the mother on the phone about this, Kelch heard respondent in the background 

“screaming,” “yelling,” “cussing,” and “calling [Kelch] obscene names,” as well as calling Kelch 
- 3 - 

“ ‘sick’ ” for referring the minor to counseling. Respondent’s behavior during that conversation 

prompted Kelch to reschedule a home visit. In November 2020, respondent commented about

wanting to “take off” with the minor. Later, in early 2021, Kelch informed respondent that visits 

with the minor were being suspended on the recommendation of the minor’s therapist, and 

respondent called Kelch an obscene name during that conversation. Kelch explained that while she 

could not be certain as to any recent incidents of domestic violence (though the mother appeared 

to have bruising on her arms and face when she attended an administrative case review meeting in 

January 2021), respondent was “screaming and yelling frequently” during his interactions with 

Kelch and even expressing threats on Facebook to take the minor. Respondent tested positive for 

marijuana nine times during this period, but the agency did not require him to undergo any 

additional substance abuse services. 

¶ 9 Respondent testified to participating in a parenting class, substance abuse 

treatment, anger management, and domestic violence counseling. Anger management in particular 

“helped” him in “how to react to things.” He denied any domestic violence during the nine-month 

period in question. 

¶ 10 The State requested the circuit court find by clear and convincing evidence the 

parents did not make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor during this period. While 

the court previously ordered respondent to address domestic violence in his individual counseling, 

the notes from that service were “pretty vague in terms of what topics were actually discussed” 

such that progress on this issue could not be demonstrated; this was “quite important to a finding 

of reasonable progress” overall. 

¶ 11 Respondent’s counsel acknowledged the behavior with the caseworker but argued 

it “really [was] a [sic] discontent but nothing to suggest that there was exhibiting of anger 
- 4 - 

management [sic] towards the child.” There was no police report regarding any violence towards 

either the mother or the minor. Respondent’s counsel urged the circuit court to find the State had 

not met its burden of proving respondent’s unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, arguing, 

“There’s nothing to suggest that [respondent] was not *** actively involved and also making 

progress in his treatment or his therapy.” 

¶ 12 The guardian ad litem acknowledged respondent participated in more services than 

the mother but argued the focus should not be on “checking off boxes here.” Instead, she 

maintained the circuit court should consider whether respondent had made “fundamental changes,” 

which the guardian ad litem argued respondent had not, focusing on his ongoing anger issues. 

¶ 13 In its September 15, 2022, ruling, the circuit court acknowledged respondent 

engaged in “a number of the services including parenting class” and a “drug and alcohol 

assessment where no treatment was recommended,” even after he tested positive for marijuana 

nine times during this period. But the court was concerned about respondent’s ongoing behavioral 

issues, noting that “while he did do anger management class, it still appeared that he had some 

struggles controlling his emotions and his behaviors,” as manifested by incidents in which he 

“threatened to take [the minor] at one point in time” and “[w]as screaming and calling a caseworker 

obscene names and references.” The court opined that “[w]hile [respondent] had done a number 

of things that were asked of him, we were never any closer to returning [the minor] to his care 

during that nine-month period of time,” and it found “that the State has proven by clear and 

convincing evidence that [respondent] as well was unfit based upon the failure to make reasonable 

progress.” 

¶ 14 On December 8, 2022, the circuit court found it in the minor’s best interests to 

terminate respondent’s parental rights. 
- 5 - 

¶ 15 This appeal followed.

¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS 

¶ 17 Respondent argues the circuit court’s unfitness finding is against the manifest 

weight of the evidence. Specifically, respondent contends he “either completed or made substantial 

progress towards the completion [of] his services during the relevant period.” Respondent 

maintains his testimony regarding addressing domestic violence in his individual counseling is 

unrebutted by evidence showing otherwise, which the State had the burden to furnish. Respondent 

also takes issue with the court “unduly fixat[ing]” on his “perceived” emotional and behavioral 

problems. 

¶ 18 We note respondent’s appellate brief “seeks reversal of the [circuit] court’s finding 

that [he] *** failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor during the 

nine-month period of October 15, 2020 to July 15, 2021, and concomitant dispositional order of 

December 9, 2022, terminating [his] parental rights,” but respondent grounds his appeal on the 

single issue of whether the unfitness finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

Accordingly, we review only the court’s unfitness finding.

¶ 19 Termination of parental rights under the Juvenile Court Act is a two-step process.

In re Keyon R., 2017 IL App (2d) 160657, ¶ 16. Parental rights may not be terminated without the 

parent’s consent unless the circuit court first determines, by clear and convincing evidence, the 

parent is unfit as defined in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2020)). 

In re Gwynne P., 215 Ill. 2d 340, 354 (2005). Pursuant to section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act 

(750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2020)), a parent may be found unfit if he fails to “make reasonable 

progress toward the return of the child to the parent during any 9-month period following the 

adjudication of neglected *** minor.” This court has defined “reasonable progress” as follows:
- 6 - 

“ ‘Reasonable progress’ is an objective standard which exists when the court, based 

on the evidence before it, can conclude that the progress being made by a parent to 

comply with directives given for the return of the child is sufficiently demonstrable 

and of such a quality that the court, in the near future, will be able to order the child 

returned to parental custody. The court will be able to order the child returned to 

parental custody in the near future because, at that point, the parent will have fully

complied with the directives previously given to the parent in order to regain 

custody of the child.” (Emphases omitted.) In re L.L.S., 218 Ill. App. 3d 444, 461 

(1991). 

See In re Ta. T., 2021 IL App (4th) 200658, ¶¶ 51, 55-57. 

¶ 20 We will not disturb a finding of unfitness unless it is against the manifest weight of 

the evidence. In re J.H., 2020 IL App (4th) 200150, ¶ 68. “A finding is against the manifest weight 

of the evidence only if the evidence clearly calls for the opposite finding [citation], such that no 

reasonable person could arrive at the circuit court’s finding on the basis of the evidence in the 

record [citation].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. 

¶ 21 The State argues it presented clear and convincing evidence of respondent’s failure 

to make reasonable progress during this period in that, “[a]lthough respondent completed the 

majority of classes, the caseworker testified that respondent never applied what he learned from 

anger management classes.” In support of its position, the State refers to respondent’s angry and 

obscene outbursts during his interactions with the caseworker and other agency personnel. We 

agree with the State. 

¶ 22 While a parent shows effort by engaging in services, a parent fails to make 

reasonable progress if he does not implement the skills taught. See In re R.L., 352 Ill. App. 3d 985, 
- 7 - 

999 (2004); see also Ta. T., 2021 IL App (4th) 200658, ¶¶ 54-57 (finding a father who “fully 

complied with the service plan” failed to make reasonable progress because he continued to be 

involved in domestic violence incidents). “[T]here [is] a significant difference between going 

through the motions, checking off the boxes, and mechanically doing what is asked of the parent 

and actually changing the circumstances that brought the children into care.” Ta. T., 2021 IL App 

(4th) 200658, ¶ 56. “The point of requiring parents to attend classes and engage in services *** is 

so parents apply what they learn *** such that the court can be confident that the children will be 

safe in their care.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. 

¶ 23 Here, Kelch testified about respondent frequently manifesting explosive behaviors 

during the relevant nine-month period, including calling her obscene names, during interactions 

either on the phone or in person. On one occasion, respondent’s behavior was such that Kelch had 

to reschedule a home visit. Respondent also made comments on Facebook threatening to take the 

minor. The circuit court found that notwithstanding respondent’s participation in anger 

management counseling, “he had some struggles controlling his emotions and his behaviors,” as 

manifested by incidents in which he “threatened to take [the minor] at one point in time” and 

“[w]as screaming and calling a caseworker obscene names and references.” This is especially 

significant in that, as reflected in the service plans admitted at the unfitness hearing, respondent 

had engaged in anger management counseling in 2018, after the initiation of an intact case. 

(Respondent’s counseling notes from Tazwood Mental Health Center likewise reflect respondent’s 

prior completion of anger management services.) As the guardian ad litem observed, respondent 

seems to have been “checking off boxes” with respect to participating in his required services 

without truly developing the ability to manage his emotions and behaviors. 
- 8 - 

¶ 24 P.S. was removed from respondent’s care because of domestic violence and 

substance abuse issues. One of the most important considerations in determining if a parent has 

made “reasonable progress” is whether the parent has corrected the conditions that led to the child

being placed in the care of DCFS. See 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2020); see also Ta. T., 2021 

IL App (4th) 200658, ¶ 55. Respondent’s continued anger management issues show he was not 

any closer to having P.S. returned to his care by July 2021 than he was in October 2020. 

¶ 25 Based on the evidence presented, the circuit court’s finding respondent was unfit 

for failing to make reasonable progress toward the return of P.S. during the relevant nine-month 

period was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 26 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 27 For the reasons stated, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment. 

¶ 28 Affirmed.