2020 IL App (4th) 190424-U 

NOS. 4-19-0424, 4-19-0425 cons. 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

In re J.B., a Minor 

(The People of the State of Illinois, 

 Petitioner-Appellee,

 v. (No. 4-19-0424) 

Bosco S., 

Respondent-Appellant).

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

 Appeal from 

 Circuit Court of 

 Adams County 

 No. 17JA51 

 

In re A.S., a Minor 

(The People of the State of Illinois, 

 Petitioner-Appellee,

 v. (No. 4-19-0425) 

Bosco S., 

 Respondent-Appellant). 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

 No. 16JA47 

 Honorable 

 John C. Wooleyhan, 

 Judge Presiding. 

 JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court. 

 Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Knecht concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court’s unfitness and bestinterest findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 2 In December 2018, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of

respondent father, Bosco S., as to his children, A.S. (born May 22, 2016), and J.B. (born June 19, 

2017). On May 24, 2019, the trial court found respondent unfit. After a separate best interest 

hearing, the court determined it to be in the best interest of A.S. and J.B. to terminate 

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). 

FILED

January 2, 2020 

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL
- 2 - 

respondent’s parental rights. On April 26, 2019, respondent mother, Kelly B., voluntarily 

surrendered her parental rights to both children and is not a party to this appeal. 

¶ 3 Respondent appeals, asserting the trial court erred in finding him unfit and 

determining it to be in A.S.’s and J.B.’s best interest to terminate his parental rights. For the 

following reasons, we affirm. 

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 A. Initial Proceedings 

¶ 6 In October 2016, the State took protective custody of A.S. That same month, the 

State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging A.S. was neglected and/or abused as 

his environment was injurious where respondent mother’s parental rights were previously 

terminated as to four other children and she continued to abuse illegal substances and expose the 

minor to domestic violence. In April 2017, the trial court entered an adjudicatory order finding 

A.S. neglected. Following a June 2017 dispositional hearing, the court (1) found A.S. was

neglected; (2) determined respondent mother was unfit and unable to care for A.S.; (3) made 

A.S. a ward of the court; and (4) placed guardianship of A.S. with the Department of Children 

and Family Services (DCFS). Initially, another person was named as the father of A.S. 

However, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing established respondent as the father of A.S. on 

January 5, 2017. Thereafter, respondent participated in the proceedings. 

¶ 7 On June 19, 2017, respondent mother gave birth to J.B. Subsequently, the State 

took protective custody of J.B. and on July 6, 2017, filed a petition for adjudication of wardship. 

The petition alleged J.B. was abused and/or neglected as her environment was injurious where 

respondent mother’s parental rights were previously terminated as to four other children. The 

petition further alleged respondent mother admitted to continued use of illegal substances and 
- 3 - 

tested positive for benzodiazepines at the birth of J.B. Originally, the father of J.B. was listed as 

unknown. However, on July 31, 2017, DNA testing established respondent as J.B.’s father. In 

February 2018, the trial court entered an adjudicatory order finding J.B. neglected. Following a 

March 2018 dispositional hearing, the court (1) found J.B. was neglected; (2) determined that 

respondent parents were unfit and unable to care for J.B.; (3) made J.B. a ward of the court; and 

(4) placed guardianship of J.B. with DCFS. Throughout both cases, respondent maintained 

custody of M.B., his 12-year-old child from another relationship. 

¶ 8 B. Termination Proceedings 

¶ 9 In December 2018, the State filed a petition to terminate respondent’s parental 

rights. The petition alleged respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of 

the minor within any nine-month time period after an adjudication of neglect under the Juvenile 

Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2018)). Attached to the 

petition was a nine-month period notice listing the nine-month periods as (1) April 4, 2017, to 

January 3, 2018, and (2) January 4, 2018, to October 3, 2018. On April 16, 2019, as to A.S., the 

State filed an additional notice listing the nine-month periods on which the State intended to 

offer evidence. According the additional notice, when determining respondent’s fitness, the 

State wanted the court to consider (1) April 4, 2017, to January 3, 2018, (2) January 4, 2018, to 

October 3, 2018, and (3) July 27, 2018, to April 26, 2019. Also, on April 16, 2019, the State 

filed an amended nine-month period notice regarding J.B. The amended notice listed the ninemonth periods as (1) February 5, 2018, to November 4, 2018, and (2) July 26, 2018, to April 26, 

2019. 

¶ 10 1. Fitness Hearing
- 4 - 

¶ 11 Over the course of two days in April and May of 2019, the trial court heard 

evidence concerning respondent’s fitness. Below, we summarize the evidence presented. 

¶ 12 a. Judicial Notice

¶ 13 Prior to calling witnesses, the State asked the trial court to take judicial notice of 

Adams County case No. 18-CH-76, a mortgage foreclosure filed against respondent on 

September 12, 2018. The case record showed a judgment of foreclosure entered February 13, 

2019. The State also asked the court to take judicial notice of Adams County case No. 16-CF399, respondent’s Class 4 felony conviction for driving while suspended entered December 19, 

2016. On July 13, 2017, respondent received 12 months conditional discharge, a fine, and 30 

days in jail, served as weekends. Without objection, the court took judicial notice of both files. 

¶ 14 b. Sharon Robesky 

¶ 15 Sharon Robesky, a DCFS permanency supervisor, testified her familiarity with 

the minor children and the parents began with an intact case opened on A.S. due to respondent 

mother’s substance abuse. DCFS took protective custody of A.S. on October 19, 2016, due to 

respondent mother’s ongoing substance abuse. At that time, the father was unknown. 

Subsequent to A.S. coming into care, respondent mother gave birth to J.B. Ultimately, DNA 

testing identified respondent as the father of both children. Robesky testified that she served as 

the case manager from October 2017 until February 2018 because the assigned case manager 

was on leave and they were short staffed. Robesky noted respondent received satisfactory 

ratings during her time as case manager. 

¶ 16 Robesky testified about an October 9, 2017, meeting where she spoke with 

respondent at his home. They met to discuss new service plan tasks related to his obligation to 

cooperate with DCFS. Specifically, DCFS expected respondent to inform DCFS of any contact 
- 5 - 

with respondent mother and notify DCFS if he became aware of respondent mother using illegal 

substances. Respondent needed to contact DCFS within 24 hours when notification became 

necessary. Robesky indicated the additional tasks were added because DCFS received reports of 

an ongoing relationship between respondent and respondent mother, who continued to struggle 

with substance abuse. DCFS wanted to evaluate the relationship between respondent and 

respondent mother in order to determine respondent’s ability to protect the children. Robesky 

stressed that respondent needed to maintain appropriate boundaries with respondent mother. 

¶ 17 On October 19, 2017, respondent called Robesky to report an incident where 

respondent mother, after attempting to contact him via texts and calls, showed up in the alley 

near respondent’s home complaining of car trouble. Respondent indicated that after he obtained 

the necessary part and repaired the vehicle, respondent mother left. 

¶ 18 During a visit to respondent’s home on October 26, 2017, Robesky informed 

respondent that in order to verify that respondent mother was not staying in respondent’s home, 

and to ensure appropriate supervision for his daughter M.B. (his 14-year-old daughter from a 

prior marriage), DCFS planned to utilize habitation workers to make unannounced visits to 

respondent’s home. Robesky testified respondent indicated he did not have time for the 

unannounced visits but DCFS still implemented the unannounced visits. 

¶ 19 During a February 2018 visit to respondent’s home, Robesky again spoke to 

respondent about respondent mother. Ericka Marshall, respondent’s parent education counselor, 

accompanied Robesky to the visit. When questioned about the last time he had been intimate 

with respondent mother, respondent indicated he could not be sure. At the visit, Robesky asked 

that respondent and Marshall continue to work on respondent learning to set proper boundaries 

with respondent mother and avoiding relationships with unhealthy women. 
- 6 - 

¶ 20 While serving as case manager, Robesky made several attempts to contact 

respondent mother. Robesky made in person attempts, placed phone calls, sent Facebook 

messages, and went to three hotels looking for respondent mother. During the conversations she 

did have with respondent mother, Robesky emphasized the importance of respondent mother 

complying with services and completing her tasks. At no time did Robesky receive 

documentation of respondent mother successfully completing services or tasks. Without 

objection, the trial court admitted People’s exhibit No. 4, containing certified copies of 

respondent mother’s September 2018 conviction for violating an order of protection that 

respondent had against her and her January 2018 conviction for unlawful possession of 

methamphetamine. 

¶ 21 c. Alison Ketsenburg 

¶ 22 Alison Ketsenburg, an advanced child welfare specialist with DCFS, testified she 

took over case management services for respondent’s case in April 2017. Over the course of her 

time as case manager, Ketsenburg prepared and evaluated multiple case plans outlining the 

various tasks DCFS expected respondent to accomplish. Initially, respondent received a 

satisfactory rating in all areas. However, from the beginning of respondent’s involvement in

these cases, DCFS expressed concerns about the relationship between respondent mother and 

respondent. Specifically, in light of respondent mother’s ongoing substance abuse, DCFS tasked 

respondent with setting healthy boundaries with respondent mother and keeping DCFS informed 

of any contact between respondent mother and respondent. Although DCFS knew about contact 

between respondent mother and respondent when evaluating case plans early on, they initially 

rated him satisfactory because they “were giving him time to work on those issues in therapy.” 
- 7 - 

¶ 23 By the time Ketsenburg evaluated respondent on his April 4, 2018, case plan, 

respondent received an unsatisfactory rating because respondent failed to keep her informed of 

his relationship and contact with respondent mother. According to Ketsenburg, respondent 

mother reported staying at respondent’s home off and on during the reporting period—something 

respondent neglected to tell her. Ketsenburg learned respondent mother acted as a designated 

driver for respondent on his birthday. When questioned concerning the whereabouts of M.B. 

while respondent celebrated his birthday, respondent indicated M.B. and some neighborhood 

girls stayed alone at respondent’s home. 

¶ 24 Respondent mother also alleged respondent sexually assaulted her during the 

reporting period. While respondent denied assaulting respondent mother, respondent admitted 

respondent mother’s presence in his home. Respondent’s counselor, Marshall, also expressed 

concern that respondent hid his true feelings toward respondent mother and lacked insight into 

how his failure to set boundaries with respondent mother impacted his children. When asked 

how she rated respondent’s progress toward the permanency goals for both children on the April 

4, 2018, service plan, Ketsenburg indicated, “unsatisfactory due to respondent’s relationship with 

respondent mother and his lack of insight into how his lack of boundaries correlated and 

impacted his children.” 

¶ 25 When Ketsenburg evaluated respondent in October 2018, respondent again 

received an unsatisfactory permanency goal rating because respondent remained in a relationship 

with respondent mother despite continued DCFS efforts to direct him to develop appropriate 

boundaries with her. Respondent allowed respondent mother to stay in his home in January 

2018, due to her homelessness. When questioned about a recent incident with respondent 

mother, respondent indicated he called the police when respondent mother showed up at his 
- 8 - 

home banging on the door, threatening him, and insisting that he let her in. Ketsenburg 

suggested respondent obtain an order of protection against respondent mother. Respondent did 

obtain the order of protection. 

¶ 26 On May 1, 2018, Ketsenburg saw respondent mother walking down the steps of 

respondent’s home, and two days later she observed respondent mother sitting on his front porch 

with a small bottle of whiskey. That day, Ketsenburg spoke with respondent mother who 

indicated she stayed at the home the night before. Respondent mother claimed that when 

Ketsenburg saw her two days earlier, she was in the home with M.B. because M.B. did not need 

to be there alone due to developmental issues. After seeing respondent mother at respondent’s 

home in May 2018, DCFS decreased respondent’s visits with A.S. Later that month, the trial 

court suspended visits between respondent and A.S. 

¶ 27 In July 2018, Ketsenburg attempted to meet with respondent at his home but 

respondent initially failed to answer the door. After leaving the home, Ketsenburg received a 

call from respondent and went back to the residence. During the visit Ketsenburg questioned 

respondent about his power being shut off and his outstanding power bill. Respondent became 

defensive, indicating such matters were his own personal business. 

¶ 28 During an August 2018 visit, respondent represented last seeing respondent 

mother the week prior outside his home. When questioned further, respondent changed his story 

and claimed he saw respondent mother outside of a gas station near his home. Respondent then 

refused any further discussion on the matter. Ketsenburg testified that respondent paid for 

respondent mother’s hotel stay in August 2018. Respondent mother reported traveling to 

Chicago with respondent for a family wedding and staying in his home after he obtained an order 
- 9 - 

of protection against her. Respondent mother was arrested on a warrant at respondent’s home in 

September 2018. 

¶ 29 Ketsenburg spoke with respondent following an October 9, 2018, court date. 

When Ketsenburg attempted to discuss scheduling a home visit, respondent indicated his 

attorney would need to be present. As to respondent continuing to seek counseling through 

Marshall, respondent told Ketsenburg he intended to transfer his counseling to a different agency 

even though Ketsenburg advised against it. Ketsenburg saw respondent at his home in 

November 2018. Respondent indicated he declined to answer multiple calls from respondent 

mother. In December 2018, the court suspended visitation between J.B. and respondent. 

¶ 30 After two attempts to reach respondent in February 2019, Ketsenburg spoke with 

him following court on February 15, 2019. Ketsenburg was aware that respondent dropped his 

order of protection against respondent mother and questioned why he did so. Respondent 

claimed respondent mother was no longer a threat to him. Respondent also indicated he had 

spoken to respondent mother a few times. When Ketsenburg went to respondent’s home in 

March 2019, he refused to sign updated consent forms, indicating he needed to speak with his 

attorney first. He also refused to answer any questions about his contact with respondent mother. 

During an April 2019 meeting, respondent refused to sign his updated case plan or updated 

consent forms. He also refused to discuss contact with respondent mother. 

¶ 31 Ketsenburg indicated that at no time during the life of the case had she been able 

to provide respondent extended or overnight visitation with either of the minor children. She 

represented that respondent had court-ordered supervised visitation for much of the time and 

throughout the case DCFS had concerns about respondent’s relationship with respondent mother. 

Finally, the court suspended visitation with both minors in May and December 2018. 
- 10 - 

¶ 32 d. Ericka Marshall

¶ 33 Ericka Marshall, the agency director at Hobby Horse House (Hobby Horse), was 

qualified as an expert in the field of mental health counseling. She testified she worked with 

respondent from November 2016 through October 2018. In working with respondent, Marshall 

provided counseling to help respondent develop healthy boundaries with respondent mother. 

Generally, counseling took place in respondent’s home every other week. Respondent struggled 

with his desire to have a relationship with respondent mother versus what DCFS asked of him 

based on safety concerns for the children. Marshall pointed out to respondent that due to 

respondent mother’s long term continued substance abuse and overall instability, her presence in 

the home, were the children returned to him, would jeopardize the safety of the children. 

Marshall counseled respondent that if he failed to put the necessary boundaries in place 

regarding respondent mother, he risked losing his parental rights. 

¶ 34 Initially, respondent minimized his relationship with respondent mother as more 

of a friendship where he hoped to keep respondent mother, as the children’s mother, in their 

lives. Respondent depicted his contacts with respondent mother as staying in touch about the 

children or helping respondent mother if she needed something. Respondent suggested that he 

would not allow respondent mother around the children when she used drugs. But, as the case 

progressed, it became clear that respondent cared deeply for respondent mother and struggled 

with setting the boundaries DCFS required. However, when respondent’s visits with the minors 

were reduced and suspended, respondent seemed to take seriously DCFS’s concerns regarding 

respondent mother. 

¶ 35 Respondent expressed to Marshall that he no longer had a relationship with 

respondent mother and seemed to make the choice to put in place the necessary boundaries to 
- 11 - 

accomplish the return of his children. Respondent represented to Marshall that once he obtained 

an order of protection against respondent mother, he no longer had contact with respondent 

mother. 

¶ 36 Following respondent’s seeming recognition of the importance of setting 

appropriate boundaries with respondent mother, Marshall noticed a change in his demeanor. 

Marshall described respondent as becoming more agitated during the last months of their 

sessions. Marshall testified that respondent claimed “it was everybody else’s fault” that the 

children were not being returned. Even so, respondent maintained he was no longer in a 

relationship with respondent mother. Then, during an October 17, 2018, conversation between 

respondent, Ketsenburg, and Marshall, respondent admitted having a relationship with 

respondent mother all along. Marshall testified that respondent stated he had continued the 

relationship since the beginning of the case. Respondent also confessed to doing his best to 

conceal the relationship to service providers. 

¶ 37 Marshall determined that while respondent demonstrated the ability to verbalize 

and understand the importance of having a healthy boundary with respondent mother, he was not 

able to demonstrate it and make it useful. Marshall indicated there was no progress because 

what respondent did and what respondent said were two different things. Marshall 

unsuccessfully discharged respondent. 

¶ 38 e. Janet Miller

¶ 39 Janet Miller, employed by Addus HomeCare, supervised visits between 

respondent and the minors. She also conducted unannounced visits to respondent’s home to 

check on respondent’s daughter, M.B., and determine if respondent mother was present. During 

visits, respondent interacted well with the children. Respondent quickly addressed some initial 
- 12 - 

safety concerns regarding the home. Once told, respondent provided necessary items for the 

children during visits. Respondent refrained from talking on his phone during visits and at no 

point allowed unapproved people to visit. Respondent was observant of the physical well-being 

of the children. The children seemed to enjoy being in respondent’s home. While she did 

sometimes find respondent’s daughter, M.B., home, she never saw respondent mother in or 

around the house. Although Miller did go inside respondent’s home during her unannounced 

visits, she did not check the basement or the closets. 

¶ 40 f. Kayla Porter

¶ 41 Kayla Porter, an outpatient behavioral therapist at Transitions of Western Illinois 

(Transitions), was qualified as an expert. She began seeing respondent weekly on October 22, 

2018. Eventually, they switched respondent to biweekly sessions. Respondent voluntarily 

sought her services for mental health difficulties related to involvement with DCFS. She 

currently provided respondent client-centered therapy where respondent identified the goals in 

treatment. Porter indicated respondent presented to her experiencing depressive symptoms and 

anxiety symptoms related to DCFS involvement. Respondent identified his goals as working on 

boundaries, managing symptoms of adjustment, and accepting feedback from peers and social 

supports. Porter indicated respondent kept his appointments and conducted himself in a 

respectful and cooperative manner. 

¶ 42 In terms of boundaries, respondent wanted to learn to set appropriate boundaries 

with family and peers to reduce the risk of being taken advantage of. When asked about any 

contact between respondent mother and respondent, Porter described respondent mother as a 

support. Porter testified respondent made “pretty quick” progress. She noted that after the first 

two weeks respondent became very optimistic, very hopeful about things, and maintained that 
- 13 - 

mind-set throughout the remaining treatment. When asked about respondent’s progress in 

setting boundaries, Porter indicated that respondent changed his definition of boundaries from 

not having contact with respondent mother to discontinuing contact if respondent mother were to 

relapse. 

¶ 43 g. Eva Herring

¶ 44 Eva Herring testified that she previously lived across the street from respondent. 

According to Herring, she, at respondent’s request, watched his home in order to notify him if 

she observed respondent mother at his home. Herring indicated that respondent directed her to 

call the police or ask respondent mother to leave if she appeared on his property. Herring 

described frequently seeing respondent mother at respondent’s home while respondent attended 

school or work. She claimed respondent mother tried to break into respondent’s home on two 

occasions. Herring represented that when she called the police, they refused to do anything. 

Herring described one incident where she asked respondent mother to leave respondent’s home 

and respondent mother told her she was there to get respondent and prevent him from getting the 

kids. 

¶ 45 h. Respondent 

¶ 46 Respondent testified he became involved with DCFS after DNA testing identified 

him as the father of A.S. Respondent admitted to Ketsenburg he used respondent mother as a 

designated driver on his birthday because he was “buzzed.” Respondent recalled an October 

2017 conversation with Robesky about setting limits with respondent mother and protecting his 

children. He denied telling Robesky that it was not his job to tell her about his contact with 

respondent mother. He recalled explaining to Robesky his ability to set boundaries due to raising 

M.B., his 14-year-old daughter from his prior marriage. Respondent testified he informed 
- 14 - 

Robesky that he did not allow respondent mother in his home without his permission or when 

she was under the influence. During this conversation, Robesky mentioned respondent’s jail 

sentence following a driving while suspended conviction. According to respondent, he spent 

weekends in jail in order to maintain his visits with the minor children. 

¶ 47 Respondent indicated that during a November 2017 conversation between 

Robesky, Marshall, and respondent, Robesky and Marshall failed to clearly define what they 

meant by setting healthy boundaries with respondent mother. According to respondent, he 

thought he needed to make sure respondent mother did not interrupt his visits or remain in his 

home without his permission. Respondent also mentioned that he told Robesky and Marshall 

that within the last three months he paid for a hotel room for respondent mother and was intimate 

with her. Respondent claimed neither Robesky nor Marshall expressed any concern regarding 

the contact he described. Respondent represented he understood the case plan in place to require 

him to notify DCFS only in the event he had contact with respondent mother and respondent 

mother was misusing substances. 

¶ 48 Respondent detailed an April 17, 2018, discussion with Ketsenburg where he 

informed her that the day before respondent mother came to his home unannounced, banged on 

his door, and was so agitated that he called the police. He testified respondent mother threatened 

him when he refused to let her inside. During this conversation, Ketsenburg suggested 

respondent obtain an order of protection against respondent mother. As for the incidents in May 

2018 where Ketsenburg saw respondent mother at his home on two occasions, respondent 

indicated he knew nothing of those incidents because he was at school, in class, an hour and a 

half away from home. He testified respondent mother did not have permission to be at his house 
- 15 - 

at that time. According to respondent, he eventually found out about respondent mother’s 

presence from a neighbor. 

¶ 49 Respondent testified he did fail to answer the door when Ketsenburg came to his 

home on July 10, 2018. However, he did call her and reschedule the meeting. Respondent 

testified that the power to his home was shut off around July 2018. He continued to visit A.S. 

because he notified the visit supervisor and arranged to visit A.S. in the community. He 

explained that he endured financial hardship when some of his landscape business customers 

failed to pay him. Ultimately, he found another job. In August 2018, after respondent informed 

Ketsenburg about seeing respondent mother at a gas station but not speaking with her, he and 

Ketsenburg again discussed maintaining appropriate boundaries with respondent mother. 

Respondent testified that at that time he had measures in place to make sure his neighbors were 

aware respondent mother was not to be on his property. He advised his neighbors to not let 

respondent remain on his property and to call the police if necessary. Respondent explained that 

even though he had measures in place, he thought if respondent mother was doing okay, he could 

have contact with her. Respondent indicated Ketsenburg never elaborated on what boundaries 

should be in place. 

¶ 50 Respondent traveled to Chicago with respondent mother for a weekend in August 

2018 and allowed her to serve as designated driver for his birthday that same month. 

Respondent indicated he and some friends intended to consume alcohol in celebration of his 

birthday. Thus, they needed someone sober to drive. Respondent represented paying respondent 

mother to drive. 

¶ 51 Respondent agreed that during an October 9, 2018, conversation with Ketsenburg, 

he represented that he needed his attorney present during any future meetings with Ketsenburg. 
- 16 - 

Respondent testified he took this position on the advice of his attorney. Respondent described an 

October 18, 2018, meeting with Ketsenburg where he expressed not being in his right mind. 

According to respondent, he needed to get help to get to a better state of mind. 

¶ 52 Respondent testified he changed counselors because Marshall frequently 

cancelled his appointments. When respondent reported the cancellations to DCFS, they never 

responded. Respondent denied that in October 2018 he admitted to Marshall that he maintained 

and hid his relationship with respondent mother throughout the life of the case. Respondent 

testified that one of his counselors at his school suggested he contact Transitions. Finally, he 

went on to explain that Marshall was no longer offering her services to him. Respondent 

indicated he signed consents allowing DCFS to receive information from Marshall and Porter. 

According to respondent, when he informed Ketsenburg that he intended to change counselors, 

she expressed no objection and advised him to sign a consent. Respondent testified Porter spoke 

with DCFS and shared information regarding his progress. 

¶ 53 In February 2019, respondent dismissed his order of protection against respondent 

mother. Respondent represented obtaining the order of protection to please DCFS. In light of 

respondent mother’s incarceration in the Adams County jail and his lack of concern about 

respondent mother posing a threat, respondent dismissed the order of protection. Respondent 

admitted allowing respondent mother to stay at his home for a few days in April 2019, after she 

entered mental health court. 

¶ 54 i. Keith Sidner 

¶ 55 Keith Sidner testified he had been friends with respondent for at least eight years. 

Since 2016, during almost weekly contact with respondent at respondent’s home, Sidner never 

saw respondent mother. The amount of time Sidner spent in respondent’s home varied based on 
- 17 - 

the reason he went to the home. On some occasions he worked for hours on projects at 

respondent’s home. At other times, he might stop by to pick up a tool and leave after as little as 

ten minutes.

¶ 56 j. Amanda Hester

¶ 57 Amanda Hester, respondent’s next-door neighbor for the last three years, testified 

respondent asked her, last summer, to watch his home to see if respondent mother came to his 

residence. Hester indicated she lived approximately ten feet away from respondent’s home. 

Hester observed respondent mother at the home on one occasion. Hester notified the police and 

respondent of respondent mother’s presence. Subsequently, respondent mother was removed 

from the home. She agreed she lacked the ability to see every entrance and exit to respondent’s 

home. 

¶ 58 k. Trial Court’s Findings 

¶ 59 After hearing the evidence, the trial court found respondent unfit. The court 

found, by clear and convincing evidence, respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward 

the return of A.S. and J.B. The court noted that early in the cases and during the relevant ninemonth periods, it was determined to be in the best interest of the minors that they have no contact 

with respondent mother because of her substantial and severe substance abuse problems. The 

court observed that while respondent father did engage in some services and did attend most, if 

not all, available visitation, respondent failed to take substantial steps toward severing his 

relationship with respondent mother. The court found respondent failed to be honest with 

caseworkers about his relationship with respondent mother until he admitted the ongoing 

relationship. At no time during the nine-month periods considered did DCFS recommend 
- 18 - 

unsupervised visits or returning the minors to respondent. Thus, the court concluded respondent 

failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minors. 

¶ 60 2. Best-Interest Hearing

¶ 61 Immediately following the conclusion of the fitness hearing, the trial court held a 

best-interest hearing. The court received the following evidence.

¶ 62 a. Ketsenburg 

¶ 63 Ketsenburg testified the minors remained in their initial foster placement. During 

her monthly visits to the foster home, Ketsenburg observed a strong bond between the foster 

parents and the minors. When needing support or comfort, the minors looked to the foster 

parents. The foster parents ensured the minors received all necessary care, kept medical 

appointments, and properly managed any medical issues the minors experienced. At no point did 

Ketsenburg have concerns regarding the foster parents. The foster parents demonstrated their 

willingness to provide permanency by vocalizing their commitment to adopting the minors and 

signing permanency commitment forms. 

¶ 64 Ketsenburg did observe a bond between the minor children and respondent. 

However, respondent’s visits with both minors remained suspended. At no point did Ketsenburg 

find herself in a position to recommend reinstatement of respondent’s visits. 

¶ 65 b. Respondent 

¶ 66 Respondent testified to the strong bond between the minor children and him. 

Respondent indicated that when allowed to visit with the minors, he made sure to have 

something planned. According to respondent, the minor children were always happy to see him 

and upset to leave. Respondent took advantage of every opportunity to visit the minor children. 

Respondent expressed his desire to maintain his parental rights and raise his children.
- 19 - 

¶ 67 c. Trial Court Findings 

¶ 68 The trial court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, it was in the best 

interest of A.S. and J.B. to terminate respondent’s parental rights. In reaching its decision, the 

court noted the foster placement’s longevity and the bond the foster parents and minors shared. 

Moreover, the foster parents met the minors’ educational and medical needs. Finally, the foster 

parents indicated their willingness to provide permanency through adoption. 

¶ 69 The court recognized that respondent loved the minor children, kept his visits, and 

acted appropriately while visiting the minors. The court stated, “there appears to be love and 

affection between the minors and the minors’ father.” However, when considering the 

importance of achieving permanency, the court found, “there hasn’t been any evidence presented 

to show when, if ever, the father would be able to achieve permanency as a placement for the 

minors being returned home.” By contrast, the court observed the foster parents represented the 

best opportunity to achieve permanency for the minors. The court found it to be in the best 

interest of the minor children to terminate respondent’s parental rights. Thus, the trial court 

terminated respondent’s parental rights. 

¶ 70 This appeal followed. We docketed Adams County case No. 17-JA-51 as case 

No. 4-19-0424 and Adams County case No. 16-JA-47 as case No. 4-19-0425. We have 

consolidated the cases for review.

¶ 71 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 72 On appeal, respondent argues the trial court erred in finding him unfit and 

determining it was in A.S.’s and J.B.’s best interest to terminate his parental rights. We address 

these arguments in turn. 
- 20 - 

¶ 73 Before we undertake our analysis in this matter, we note the tardiness of our 

decision. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a)(5) (eff. July 1, 2018) provides: “[e]xcept for good 

cause shown, the appellate court shall issue its decision within 150 days after the filing of the 

notice of appeal.” Regrettably, due to delays in the filing of the record and the briefs in this 

matter, we were unable to engage in the necessary review and consideration of this matter 

without postponing the rendering of our decision. 

¶ 74 A. Fitness Finding 

¶ 75 The State has the burden of proving parental unfitness by clear and convincing 

evidence. In re Jordan V., 347 Ill. App. 3d 1057, 1067, 808 N.E.2d 596, 604 (2004). A 

reviewing court will not overturn the trial court’s finding of unfitness unless it is against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. Id. The court’s decision is given great deference due to “its 

superior opportunity to observe the witnesses and evaluate their credibility.” Id. 

¶ 76 Under section 1(D)(m)(i), (ii), of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i), (ii) 

(West 2018)) a parent may be found unfit due to a failure to make reasonable progress toward 

the return of the child during any nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect. 

“Reasonable progress” is an objective standard that considers the progress made toward the goal 

of returning the child to the parent. In re M.A., 325 Ill. App. 3d 387, 391, 757 N.E.2d 613, 617 

(2001). 

¶ 77 While there was evidence of respondent attending counseling and, for the 

majority of the time, focusing on setting appropriate boundaries relating to respondent mother, 

the record does not support the conclusion that the counseling effected positive progress. The 

evidence of an ongoing relationship with respondent mother supports the court’s determination 

respondent failed to make reasonable progress.
- 21 - 

¶ 78 When evaluating reasonable progress, the court must consider the progress made 

toward the goal of returning the child to the parent. Id. The record shows respondent complied 

with the service plans in visiting the minors and forming bonds with them. However, the record 

also shows respondent (1) continued his relationship with respondent mother; (2) lied about and 

attempted to hide his relationship with respondent mother; and (3) failed to learn, through 

counseling, how to set appropriate boundaries with respondent mother. This evidence, coupled 

with respondent mother’s ongoing substance abuse, continued use of alcohol, and consistent 

involvement in criminal activity, is sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion the evidence 

clearly and convincingly showed respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward returning 

the minors to his custody. Accordingly, we conclude the court’s finding of unfitness was not 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 79 B. Best-Interest Finding 

¶ 80 Respondent next asserts the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights. We 

disagree. 

¶ 81 Once the trial court determines a parent to be unfit, the next stage is to determine 

whether it is in the best interest of the minor to terminate parental rights. In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill. 

App. 3d 239, 261, 810 N.E.2d 108, 126 (2004). The State must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that termination is in the best interest of the minor. Id. The court’s finding will not be 

overturned unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. at 261-62. 

¶ 82 The focus of the best-interest hearing is determining the best interest of the child, 

not the parent. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2014). The trial court must consider the 

following factors, in the context of the child’s age and developmental needs, in determining 

whether to terminate parental rights:
- 22 - 

“(a) the physical safety and welfare of the child, including 

food, shelter, health, and clothing; 

(b) the development of the child’s identity; 

(c) the child’s background and ties, including familial, 

cultural, and religious; 

(d) the child’s sense of attachments ***[;] 

* * * 

(e) the child’s wishes and long-term goals; 

(f) the child’s community ties, including church, school, 

and friends; 

(g) the child’s need for permanence which includes the 

child’s need for stability and continuity of relationships with parent 

figures and with siblings and other relatives; 

(h) the uniqueness of every family and child; 

(i) the risks attendant to entering and being in substitute 

care; and 

(j) the preferences of the persons available to care for the 

child.” Id.

¶ 83 Here, the record demonstrates the minors remained in their initial foster 

placement and had developed a close bond with the foster parents. The foster parents continued 

to meet the educational, health, and basic needs of the minor children. The record shows the 

minors were in a stable, loving home with foster parents willing to provide them permanency. In 
- 23 - 

addition to expressing their desire to adopt the minors, the foster parents documented, in writing, 

their intention to adopt the minors. 

¶ 84 Conversely, respondent cannot provide safety, stability, and permanence for the 

minors. Near the time of the best-interest hearing, respondent allowed respondent mother to stay 

in his home. In spite of respondent mother’s ongoing struggles with addiction, alcohol abuse, 

and criminal involvement, respondent seemed unable and unwilling to set boundaries necessary 

to obtain the return of the minors. Moreover, due to his inability to set the necessary boundaries 

regarding respondent mother, his visits with the minors remained suspended. Unfortunately, 

despite his love for the minors, respondent cannot provide them the safety, stability, and 

permanence they deserve.

¶ 85 Accordingly, we conclude the trial court’s finding that it was in A.S.’s and J.B.’s 

best interest to terminate respondent’s parental rights was not against the manifest weight of the 

evidence.

¶ 86 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 87 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

¶ 88 Affirmed.