## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## R E P O R T S Appellate Court

In re Jacorey

S. , 2012 IL App (1st) 113427

Appellate Court Caption In re J ACOREY S. and J AKYLAH S., Minors, Respondents-Appe llees (The People of the State of I llinois
, Petitioner-Appellee
, v. An d re S

. , Respondent-Appe llant).

District & N o. First District, Second D ivision Docke t No. 1-11-3427

Filed May 29, 2012

Held (Note : T

his syl lab us

con st it ute s n o par t of the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed by the Rep o rt er of D e c i s i o n s f

o r t h e

c o n v e n i e n c e o

f t h e

rea der

. ) The finding that responde nt was unfit as the fa t h er of his children was af fi rm ed, since responde nt did not make rea sonable prog ress toward reunific ation with his twins in any of the three nine-month periods following the adjudication of neg lect and he failed to prove he maintained

a rea sonable deg ree of interest, conce rn or responsibil ity as to the children’s welfa

re, espec ially when he did not complete individual thera py , the minimum requirement in the proc ess towar d reunific ation.

Dec ision Under
Review Appea l from the Circuit Court of Cook County
, Nos. 07-JA-8, 07-JA-10; the Hon. Nichola s Gea

nopoulos, J udg e, pre siding.

J udg ment Affir med.Counsel on

Appea l Michae l J . Vitale, of B erw y n, for a ppellant.

Anita M. Alvare z, State’s Attorney
, of C h i cag o (Alan J

. Spellberg
, J ennife r Streeter
, and Nicole Lucer o , As sistant State’s Attorney s, of counsel), f

or the People.

Robert F. Har

ris, Public Guar dian, of Chicag o (Ka ss A. Plain an d Christopher Will iams, of counse l), g uardia n ad litem

.

Panel J USTI CE CUNNI NGHAM delivere d the judgme nt of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Quinn and J ustice Connors concur red in the judgme nt and opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 This appea l a

rises from an October 28, 2011 order enter ed by

the circ uit court of Cook County which terminated the pare ntal rig hts of Ericka M. (Eric ka) and responde nt-appe llant Andre S. (Andre ) as to J acor ey S. (Jacorey ) and J akylah S. (Jaky lah), and appointed D. J ean Orteg a-Piron (Orte g a-Piron) as Jacorey ’s and J akylah’s (collec tively
, the twins) temporar y g uardia n with the power to consent to adoption. On appea l, Andre argues that pet i t i o n er

ap p el l ee the People of the State of I llinois (State) failed to prove by clea r and convinci n g evidenc e that Andre was unfit as a pare nt pursuant to section 1(D)(b) of the Adopti on Act (750 I L CS 50/1(D)( b ) (W es t 2008)) and section 1(D)( m) of the Adoption Act (750 I L CS 50/1(D)( m) (West 2008) ). For the following rea sons, w e aff irm the judg ment of the circ uit court of Cook County

.

¶ 2 BA CKGROUND ¶ 3 Andre and Ericka have five children toge ther: Celeste S. (Celeste)
, born on October 19, 2002; J alee l S. (Jaleel ), b o rn on J anuar y 21, 2005; twins J acor ey and J aky lah, born on Dec ember 5, 2005; a

nd Andre S., born on J anuar y 20, 2008. Ericka

also has anothe r child, C am i l l e S

. (C amille), wit h an unknown fathe r, born on Dec ember 1, 2001. This case only involves the twins. After the tw i n s we re born, Ericka g ave J acor ey to a family friend, Pavielle S. (Pavielle), and g ave J aky lah to another family friend, Antoinette R. (Antoinette), beca use she could not c are for them. Ericka reta ined custody of her other three children. I n September 2006, the twins had an overnig ht v i s i t with Ericka

. Both J acor ey and J akylah
appea red to be fine when they wer e dropped off by their g uardia ns; howeve r, both children had bruises on their fac es once they returne d from visiti ng with Ericka

. I n Dec ember 2006,

-2-the twins had another overnig ht visit with Ericka

. Ericka claimed that during this v isit,

J akylah fell off the couch and hit her head but Ericka did n o t i m m ed iately seek medical attention for J akylah. When Antoinette came to pick up J akylah the next d ay , E ri ck a told Antoinette to take J akylah to the hospital. J akylah was then hospitaliz ed with a skull fra cture and bleeding on the brain. The Depa rtment of Children and Family Service s (DCFS) beca me

awa re of the twins’ ca se whe n a doctor called the DCFS child abuse a nd neg lect hotline to
repor t J aky lah’s injuries. ¶ 4 DCFS then initiated a safe ty plan in which the five children wer e place d with an o t her family friend. Andre stated that he could not take car e of the children at that time beca use his
apar tment only had one bedroom and there was no one to wa t ch the children while he worke d. I n J anuar

y 2007, Ericka violated the safe ty plan by removing Camille, Celeste and J alee l from the car e of the family friend. All five children wer e then place d in protec tive custody

. On J anuar

y 8, 2007, the State fi l ed p et itions for adjudication of war dship and motions for temporar

y custody of the five children, including the twins. At that time, Ericka identified the twins’ fathe r as Do nnell Davis. Over the next few months, the five children

wer e placed with various family friends a nd rela tives in temporar

y custody

. On M arc h 11, 2007, Camille, Celeste, and J al eel wer e place d with Andre ’s aunt. J acor ey rema ined with Pavielle and Jaky lah re mained with Antoinette. ¶ 5 On J anuar

y 2, 2008, the trial court enter ed a perma nency order for the twins with a g oal of returning them home pending a status hear ing. The court found that Ericka had not made substantial prog ress beca

use she was not participa

ting in the service s require d by DCFS, and Donnell Davis had not made substantial prog ress beca use he had not come forwa rd for DCFS service s. On April 30, 2008, a man named Donnell Davis appea red in the trial court and the
court order ed him to take pater nity tests as to the twins. The tests confirme d that he was not the twins’ fathe r and the court enter ed a finding of nonpater nit y o n J une 20, 2008. On the

same day
, the court enter ed a defa ult judgme nt ag ainst him for failing to appea r. On May 23, 2008, while the twins’ adjudication petition was pending
, the State published a notice of the adjudication p ro ceeding s in the Chicago Sun Times beca use Donnell Davis had not y et appea red. Shortly there afte r, a differ ent man named Donnell Davis was located at a Chicag o addre ss. After substitut e service was obtained, the trial court enter ed a defa ult judgme nt ag ainst him for failing to appea r. ¶ 6 On Dec ember 18, 2008, the trial court held an adjudicator y hear ing as t o al l s i x of Ericka ’s children. At that time, Andre had admitted to being the biologica l fathe r of Celeste, J alee l, and Andre S
., but had not admit t ed to being the bi ologic al father of the t wins. The trial court found that the twins wer e neg lected due to an injurious environment. The trial
court also enter ed dispositi on order s that adjudicate d the twins war ds of the court. The trial court found Ericka unable to car e for them, and “D onnell Davis, unknowns and AW /MC” unable and unwilling to c are for them. At a perma nency hear ing on that same day
, the trial
court enter ed a g oal of returning the twins home in 12 months. I n May 2009, DCFS moved J akylah to live with J acor ey in Pavielle’s home. ¶ 7 On November 9, 2009, Andre reque sted a pater nity test to deter

mine if he was the twins’ fathe r. On Fe bruar

y 25, 2010, the pater

nity test reve aled that Andr e wa s in fac t the twins’ fathe r. On April 8, 2010, the trial court held a perma nency hear ing and ag ain enter ed a g oal

-3-of returning the twins home in 12 mon t hs. The court found that Ericka had not made

substantial pr og ress toward returning the twins home, but that Andre had made substantial
prog ress toward reunific ation and had been consistent with individual thera py service s since J uly 2009. Howeve r, on J uly 1, 2010, the trial court held a perma nency hear ing and enter ed

a g oal of termination of pare ntal rig hts. The trial court found that, althoug h Ericka and Andre

wer e now living toge ther, neither pare nt had been consistent with reunific at i o n s ervices require d by

DCFS reg ardingthe twins. ¶ 8 On December 7, 2010, the S tate filed a suppl emental petition for the appointment of a
g uardia n with the rig ht to consent to a doption. The petition include d a reque st to terminate the pare nts’ rig hts. The petition a lleg ed that both pare nts wer e unfit for: failing to maintain

a rea son ab l e d egr ee of interest, conce rn or responsibility as to the children’ s welfa re in violation of section 1(D)( b) of the Adoption Act and section 2-29 of the J uvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 I L C S 4 0 5 / 2 -2 9 (West 2008)); and failing to make

rea sonable eff

orts to corr ect the conditions that wer e the basis for the remova l of the children and/or failing to make rea sonable prog ress toward the return of the children within nine months afte r the adjudication of neg lect or abuse, or after an adjudication of depende ncy , and/or within any nine-month period afte r said finding
, in violation of section 1(D)( m) of the Adoption Act and se ction 2-29 of the Juvenile Court Act. ¶ 9 On October 28, 2011, a hear ing for termination of pare ntal rig hts was held in the circ uit
court of Coo k C o u n t y

. E ri cka signe d consents for the adoption of the twins and the court

acc epted the consents. The hear ing proce eded only as to Andre

. The trial court admitted into evidenc e various exhibi ts offe red by the S t at e. These exhibi ts included numerous DCFS service plans dating from 2007 to 2011, cer tified documents from the Children’s Home and Aid (her einaf

ter, CHA S I ) ag ency including a mental health assessment, and CHASI court repor ts. Christina Gar dner (Supervisor Gar dner)
, former supervisor of the CHASI foster car e prog ram, testified for the State. Supervisor Gar dner was the case worke r orig inally assig ned
to Andre and Ericka ’s family

. CHASI assessed Andre and Ericka in J une 2007. At that time, Donnell Davis was listed as the fathe r of the twins, and Andre was assessed for service s based on fathe ring Celeste and J alee l. Supervisor Gar dner stated that the service s that wer e

re co m m en ded for Andre as to Celeste and J alee l wer e the same service s he would have neede d to complete for

the twins. ¶ 10 Supervisor Gar dner testified that when she met with Andre in J une 2007, he said that he

was not g oing to participate in any service s bec au s e he had not done any thing wrong

. I n Februar y 2008, Andre completed a 15-hour pare nting prog ram without the knowledg e o f CHASI

. Andre was ref

err ed to domestic violence counseling in J une 2009 as a result of an 1 incident betwee n Ericka and himself. He completed the counseling in Marc h 2010. Also in J une 2009, Andre and Ericka told CHASI that they we re l i v i n g toge ther and intended to copar ent their children. Andre beg an individual t h er ap y in J uly 2009. Supervisor Gar dner testified that numerous times be tween 2007 and 2010, Andre was told that if he was living

CHASI had pre viousl y re fe rr ed Andr e and Eri cka to thi s same par ent ing pro gram , but the y 1 did not at te nd a t t he t ime the y were r ef er re d an d t he r ef

er ra l wa s c los ed.

-4-with Ericka
, both he and Ericka would have to succe ssfully complete reunific ation service s

if they wanted to pare nt toge ther. CHASI ’s attempts to ref er Andre and Ericka to couples counseling never materia liz ed beca use neither Andre nor Ericka consi stently attended individual thera

py sessions. Although Andre attended some individual thera py sessions, he

never completed the prog ram. L ikewise, couples counseling and family thera py wer e never completed. At various times, Andre was able to have unsupervi s ed v isits with Celeste, Camille, J alee l and Andre S

. Supervisor Gardner testified t hat Andre visited wi th Camille

even though he was not her biologica l fathe r, and Camille knew him as her fathe r. Howeve r, visits were a lso “vac ated a nd violated on more tha

n one occ asion.” ¶ 11 J ustin B rown (Casew orker Br own), Andre and Ericka ’s CHASI case worke r at the time of t he t er m ination hear ing, also testified for the S tate. C asew orker Br own was assig ned to Andre and Ericka ’s case in November 2009, shortly afte r Andre reque sted a pater nity test to deter mine i f h e was the twins’ fathe r. Casewor ker Br own stated that betwee n November 2009 and the time of the termination hear ing, Andre ’s attendanc e at individual thera py was

never consistent. Casewor

ker B rown testified that in J uly 2009, Andre said he wa s willing
to participate in the require d service s. CHASI then rec ommended couples thera py and family thera py

. Those service s wer e not completed beca use Andre made insu ff

i ci en t prog ress in individual thera

py

. I n J anuar

y 2010, Andre told Casewor ker Br own that he was living with Eri ck a and planned to copar ent with her. Also in J anuar y 2010, Andre left a voicemail
messag e for Casewor

ker Br own saying that he would no longe r participate in t h er apy

. I n Fe bruar y 2010, Andre as k ed if his individual thera py sessions could chang e from once a

wee k to twice a month. CHASI ag ree d; howeve r, Andre ’s attendanc e rema ined inconsistent and ther e was a month in the summer of 2010 in w hich Andre did not attend thera py at all. When Casewor

ker Brown asked Andre why he was not attending thera py , Andre said that he was not g etting any

thing out of it. Casewor

ker Br own explained to both pare nts numerous times that they both had to make prog ress in the thera py and other s er v i ce s in order to be elig ible for r eunification with the twins. ¶ 12 I n Marc h 2010, afte r rec eiving the pater nity res u l t s , An d re b ega n h av i n g wee kly supervised visits with the twins. Andre attended about half of the schedule d visits. Andre claimed he could not attend more visits beca use he was participating in a jo b t raining
prog ram. Casewor

ker Br own offe red to sc hedule the visits ar ound Andre ’s work sc hedule, but Andre never cooper ated. I n J une 2010, CHASI held a family meeting i n wh i ch both
pare nts of the twi n s we re invited, but Andre did not attend the meeting

. I n J uly 2010, the
perma nency g oal chang ed to termination of pare ntal rig hts and CHASI discontinued paying for Andre ’s thera

py

. After the perma

nency g oal ch an g ed to termination of pare ntal rig hts, Andre ’s visits with the twins chang ed to once a month. Casewor ker Br own testified that over time, Andre was inconsistent with the monthly visits. Be tween J uly 2010 and the termination hear ing, Andre was not involved in any service s. Casewor ker Br own testified that Ericka

never made e noug h prog ress in individual therapy to warr ant initiating fa

mily counseling

. ¶ 13 The trial court h el d t h at Andre was an unfit pare nt pursuant to sections 1(D)( b) and 1(D)( m) of the Adoption Act. The trial court expli citly stated that its finding s wer e not based

on Andre ’s failure to as k fo r a p at ernity test ear lier than November 2009. The trial court

s t at ed that even if a parent i s noncustodial, the parent is still not relieve d of t he obli g ati o n

-5-to participate in service s related to the well-be ing of his children. The trial court rec og nized

that Andre had participated in so m e s ervic es, having completed domestic violence counseling and a 15-hour pare nting prog ram. Howeve r, the court also noted that Andre never

succe ssfully completed individual thera py , was inconsistent in visiti ng the twins, and never completed couples thera

py or family thera

py

. The court found that ev en if Andre was not living with Ericka
, he still would have had to complete individual thera py in order to achie ve reunific ation, y et he failed to complete this important service

. The court hear d the testimony
reg arding the fre quent ad m onitions by CHASI and DCFS reg arding the nece ssity for consistent participation in the require d service s. The trial court held that the State proved by clea r and convincing evidenc e that Andre failed to maintain a rea sonable deg ree of interest,

conce rn or responsibility reg arding the welfa re of the twins. His lack of participation in service s, his ref

usal to continue thera

py and his failure to rec og nize the im portanc e of service s all play ed a role in the court’s decision. The trial court held that based on the totality

o f t h e evidenc e and information available to the court, Andre failed to make rea sonab l e eff orts to corr ect the condi t i o n s that wer e the orig inal bases for removal of t he twins from the home. Fur

ther, he failed to make rea sonable prog ress toward reunific ation with the twins during the three nine-month periods whe n he had a n opportunity

to do so. ¶ 14 During the best i n t er es t s p o rt i o n of the hear ing, the trial court found that it was in J acor ey ’s an d J akylah’s best interests to terminate Andre ’s pare ntal rig hts. In terminating Andre ’s pare ntal rig hts, the trial court noted that the twins wer e in a stable foster home wher e they wer e integ rate d into the extended family

. The court noted that t h ey m ai ntained a relationship with Andre

. The trial court appointed Orteg a-Piron as g uardia n of the twins with the rig ht to consent to adoption. Following the trial court’s ruling
, Andre filed this notice of
appea l.

¶ 15 ANAL YSI S ¶ 16 Andre i s appea ling only the trial court’s finding that he was unfit to have the childre n pursuant to sections 1(D)( b) and 1(D)( m) of the Adoption Act. Thus, the trial court’s finding s

as to J acor ey ’s and J akylah’s best interests are not at issue and will not be ad d ressed. We
note that in addition to Andre and the State filing briefs in this appea l, the office of the public
g uardia n (Public Guar dian) also filed a brief on behalf of t he twins

. Be cause the S tate and the Public Guar di an p resent many of the same arguments, we will mainly addre ss the
arguments prese nted by

the State and will incor

porate any additional arg

uments offe red by the Public Guardia

n as appr opriate. ¶ 17 We first examine the State’s arg ument that Andre ’s brief should be stricken for multiple violations of I llinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (ef f. J uly 1, 2008) and I llinois Supreme Court Rule 342 (ef

f. J an. 1, 2005). I f an appellant’ s brief violates the supreme court rules, this court has the authority to dismi s s the appea l. Epstein v. Galuska
, 362 I ll. App. 3d 36, 42, 839 N.E.2d 532, 537 (2005). Howeve r, Supreme C o u rt R u le 341 is an admonishment to the parties, not a li mitation on the j urisdiction of t he reviewing court, and the revie wi ng court has discre tion in order to re ach a j ust result. Brown v. Brow n , 62 I ll. App. 3d 328, 332-33, 379 N.E.2d 634, 637 (1978)

.

-6-¶ 18 The Public Guar dian argues that Andre ’s brief is in violation of Rule 341(h)( 6) and Rule

342(a) beca

use the appendix of the brief does not c ontain any of the re quirements set for th in those two rules. The Public Guar dian also argues that Andre ’s brief v i o l at es R ule 341 beca use it is single space d with incorre ct marg ins, there is no cer tificate of compliance
, and there is a sy stematic failure to acc urate ly cite to the rec ord. See I ll. S

. C t

. R. 341(a)
, (c)
, (h)( 6) (ef f. J uly 1, 2008). We acknow ledg e that Andre ’s brief is in violation of Rule 341 and Rule 342 and could be stricken based on noncompliance

. Howeve r, n otwithstanding the defic iencies, Andre ’s arguments war rant d i s cussion and resolution. Acc ording ly
, while admonishing Andre reg arding the importance of comply ing with the rules of t h e supreme court, we will address the me rits of the appe al. ¶ 19 Next, Andre arg ues t hat t he S tate failed to prove that he was unfit to have the children pursuant to section 1(D)( m) of the Adoption Act

. The J uvenile Court Act provides a bifurca ted sy stem in which pare ntal rig hts can be terminated. In re Konstanti nos H.
, 387 I ll. App. 3d 192, 203, 899 N.E.2d 549, 558 (2008); 705 I L CS 405/ 2-29(2) (West 2008). First,
t h e S t ate must show by clea r and convincing evidenc e that the pare nt is unfit. In r e Konsta n t i n o s H.
, 387 I ll. App. 3d at 203, 899 N.E.2d at 558. “A finding of unfitness will stand if supported by any o n e o f t h e statutory g rounds set forth in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act.” Id

. at 203-04, 899 N.E.2d at 558. Then, the State must show that the best interests of the children are serve d by sever ing the pare ntal rig hts. Id

. at 203, 899 N.E.2d at 558. The trial court’s decision to terminate pare ntal rig hts involves fac tual fi n d i n gs and

cre dibilit y assessments that the trial court is in the best position to make. Id

. Thus, the trial court’s finding of unfitness will not be disturbed unless it is contra ry to the manifest weig ht of the evidenc e and the rec ord clea rly shows that the opposite result was proper

. Id

. “ ‘Eac h

case conce rning pare ntal unfitness is sui generis
, requiring a close analy sis of its individual fa ct s ; conseque ntly
, fac tual compar isons to other case s by revie wing courts are of littl e value.’ ” Id

. (quoting In re Da p h n ie E.
, 368 I ll. App. 3d 1052, 1064, 859 N.E.2d 123, 135 (2006))

. ¶ 20 The Adoption Act states that a person shall be considere d unfit to have a child under any of the g rounds in section 1(D) including: “(m) Fa ilure by a pare nt (i) to make rea sonable eff orts to corr ect the conditions that

wer e the basis for the remova l of the child from the pare nt, or (ii) to make rea sonable
prog ress toward the return of the child to the pare nt within 9 months afte r an adjudication of neg lected or abused minor under Section 2-3 of the J uvenile Court Act of 1987 or depende nt minor under Section 2-4 of that Act, or (iii) to make re as o n able prog ress toward the return of the child to the pare nt during any 9-month period afte r the end of the initial 9-month period following the adjudication of neg lected or ab u s ed minor under Section 2-3 of the J uvenile Court Act of 1987 or depende nt minor under Section 2-4 of that Act.” 750 I L CS 50/ 1(D)( m) (West 2008). Subsections ( i) and (ii) a

re e x amined only under the first nine months a fter adjudication of
neg lect, and subsection (iii) is examined under any nine-month period following the end of the first nine months afte r the adjudication of neg lect. In re Tiff any M.
, 353 I ll. App. 3d 883, 890, 819 N.E.2d 813, 820 (2004)

.

-7-¶ 21 Reasonable eff orts and rea sonable prog ress are separ ate and distinct g rounds for finding

a pare nt unfit under section 1(D)( m) of the Adoption Act. In re Daphnie E.
, 368 I ll. App. 3d
at 1066, 859 N.E.2d at 137. Reasonable eff orts are judge d by a subjecti v e s t an dard based
upon the amount of eff

ort that is rea sonable for a particula r person. Id

. at 1066-67, 859 N.E.2d at 137. “[R] easona ble prog ress is judge d by an objective st andard based upon the
amount of prog ress measure d from th e co n d itions exis ting at the time custody was taken from the pare nt.” Id

. at 1067, 859 N.E.2d at 137. Reasonable prog ress require s, at minimum
, measura ble or demonstrable movement toward the g oal of reunific ation. Id

. The standard for measuring a pare nt’s prog ress is to consider the pare nt’s compliance with the service plans and the court’s direc tives in light of the condi t i o n s that led to the child’s remova l, and subsequent conditions that would preve nt the court from returning custody of the child to the
pare nt. Id

. “Rea sonable prog ress exis ts when the trial court can conclude that it will be able to order the child returne d to pare ntal custody in the near

future.” Id

. ¶ 22 Andre argues that he exceede d the standards that define a fit pare nt beca use of his ability
to take car e of the twins’ other four siblings. Andre claims that for y ear s he had unsupervised visits with the four other children and took care of them responsibly to the point wher e Camille ref

err ed to him as her fathe r despite the fact that he wa s n o t h er b i ologic al father. Andre states t hat t he twins also came al o n g for the uns upervised visit s with their si blings,

even befor e Andre reque sted a pater nity test. Andre also points out that he completed a 15- hour pare nting prog ram and completed a co urse on domestic violence. He argues that he clea rly made prog ress beca

use he was rate d as satisfac tory in t he service plan in J anuar y 2010. He also claims that he could not make prog ress during the first nine months afte r adjudication beca

use it was not y et deter

mined that he was the fathe r of the twins. Andre
argues t hat DC FS ex pecte d him to continue completing services in perpe t u i t y b eca use t he service s he wa s require d to complete for the twins were the s ame se rvice s he wa s require d
to complete for the twins’ siblings. Andre claims that this shows that the State did not prove by clea r and convincing evidenc e that he was an unfit parent under section 1(D)( m) of t he Adoption Act. ¶ 23 I n response , the State argues that Andre did not make rea sonable eff o rt s to corr ect the conditions that cause d the twins’ remova l. The Public Guar dian points out that the first ninemonth period afte r the twins w ere adjudicate d war ds of the court ran from Dec ember 2008
to September 2009. Andre beg an participation in indivi dual t hera py service s in J uly 2009. The Public Guar dian argues that two months of parti ci p ating in service s in compar ison to

seven months of nonparticipation is not a rea sonable eff ort. The State also argues that Andre failed to m ak e re as onable prog ress during any of the three nine-month periods afte r adjudication. The State points o ut that althoug h Andre was attending individual thera py sessions for a short period of time, he never completed individual thera py , couples thera

py , or family counseling

. Moreove r, Andre never prog resse d far enoug h to ear n u n s u p ervised visits with the twins. Andre only attended 50% of the schedule d wee kly visits with the twins and was likewise inconsistent with schedule d monthly visits. Thus, the State claims t h at Andre did not make re asonable prog ress a t any time before the termination hea ring

. ¶ 24 I n addition, the Public Gua rdian argues that rea sonable eff orts and rea sonable prog ress

are separ ate gr ounds, and only one ground of unfitness needs to be prove d in order to find

-8-a pare nt unfit. In re R.L.
, 352 I ll. App. 3d 985, 998, 817 N.E.2d 954, 966 (2004). The Public

Guar dian points out that this court can aff irm the trial court’s ruling based on Andre ’s lack of rea sonable eff

orts or rea sonable prog ress in the first nine-month period afte r adjudication,

o r An dre’ s lack of rea sonable prog ress in the second or third nine-month period af t er adjudication. The three nine-month periods that followed adjudication as to the twins wer e: Dec ember 2008 to September 2009; September 2009 to J une 2010; and J une 2010 to Marc h 2011. As previously discussed, the Public Guar dian points out that Andre did not make

rea sonable eff

orts or prog ress during the first nine-month period and only partici p at ed in thera py during the final two months of that period. The Public Guar dian als o ar gu es that Andre failed to make rea sonable prog ress during the second and third nine-month per iods. I n J anuar y 2010, Andre stated that he no longe r wanted to participate in thera py , and in Fe bruar y 2010 he reduc ed his thera py to twice a month i n s t ea d o f weekly

. I n J une 2010, Andre stopped participating in thera py altog ether

. There fore
, Andre eng ag ed in no service s at all during the third nine-month period. Moreove r, An d re conti nued to live with Ericka during the second and third nine-month periods while she also made no prog ress. Andre was told by the case worke rs on numerous occa sions that if he chose to live with Ericka
, both
pare nts would have to make prog ress in order to achie ve reunific ation with the twin s. There fore
, the State argues that Andre failed to make rea sonable eff orts or re as o nable
prog ress at any

time. ¶ 25 We ag ree with the arguments presen t ed b y t h e S t at e and the Public Guar dian. Andre participated in individual thera py service s from J uly 2009 throug h Marc h 2010, completed

a domestic violence prog ram, and completed a 15-hour pare nting prog ram in Fe bruar y 2008. Andre ’s completion of the pare nting prog ram was done outside of a ref err al from DCFS, and took place befor e the twins we re a djudicated wa rds of the c ourt and thus befor e any of t he three nine-month periods beg an to run. Andre ’s participation in individual thera py beg an toward the very end of the first nine-month period, and ended befor e the second nine-month period was over. Andre en gaged in no service s at all during the third nine-month period. Moreove r, throug hout a ll thre e of the nine-month periods, Andre was inconsistent w ith his visits with the twins. We cannot say that the trial court err ed in finding that Andre failed to show rea sonable eff

orts or rea sonable prog ress in any of the three nine-month periods. The standard for measuring rea sonable prog ress is to consider the pare nt’s compliance with the service plans and whether the court can conclude that the children can be returne d home in the nea r future. At no point dur ing any of the three nine-month periods wa s Andre c lose to reunific ation with the twins. At the very least, under the fac ts of this case , Andre would have had to complete individual thera py and li v e ap ar t from Ericka in order to achie ve reunific ation. He c lear ly

fell short of these require ments. ¶ 26 Andre argues that the trial court unfairly penalized him for lack of eff o rt an d prog ress during the first nine-month period beca use he was unawa

re that he was the fathe r of the twins until F ebrua

ry 25, 2010. I n response , the Public Gua rdian cites In re B.W

. , 309 I ll. App. 3d 493, 721 N.E.2d 1202 (1999). In that case , a father c halleng ed the tria l court’s termination of his pare ntal rig hts, arguing that he was unawa re of the child’s birth due to his incar cer ation and there fore was unable to show rea sonable prog ress. In re B.W

. at 499, 721 N.E.2d at 1207. The appellate court found that an objective standard i s u s ed when deter mining whether

-9-rea sonable prog ress has occur red, and rea sonable prog ress may be found when the trial court can conclude that the pare nt’s prog ress is suffic iently demonstrable showing that the child can be returned to the parent in the near fut u re

. Id

. The appellate court held t hat t he father

was re sponsible for his la ck of knowledg e of the child’s birth bec ause he remove d himself from the community due to criminal behavior and fail ed to make any prog ress afte r he beca me aware of t he child ’s exis tence

. Id

. at 500, 721 N.E.2d at 1208. Thus, the appellate court held that the t rial court’s finding of unfitness was not ag ainst t h e m anife st weig ht of the evidenc e. Id

. ¶ 27 We ag ree with the Public Guar dian’s argument and the rea soning of the appellate court in In re B.W

. Under an objective examination, it is clea r that Andre did not make rea sonable
prog ress toward reunific ation with the twins during the first nine-month period afte r adjudication. The fac t that he was unawa re that he was the twins’ fathe r does not excuse his lack of prog ress. He was awa re of the milieu in which the twins lived and was an active participa nt. Fur ther, the knowledg e or circ umstanc e s that propelled him to reque st a pater nity
test could have been utiliz ed sooner. I t was entirely up to him. Moreove r, the trial court did
not err in finding that Andre failed to show rea sonable prog ress duringthe s econd or third nine-month period afte r he knew he was the twins’ fathe r. Acc ording ly
, the t ri al court’s finding of unfitness during either the second or third nine-month period is sufficie nt for this
court to aff

irm the trial court’s ruling

. Acc ording ly
, we aff irm the trial co u rt ’s ruling that Andre was a

n unfit pare nt pursuant to section 1(D) (m) of the Adoption Act. ¶ 28 Andre next arg ues that the State failed t o prove that he was an unfit pare nt pursuant to section 1(D)( b) of the Adoption Act. The Adoption Act say s that the court may find a person unfit to have a child beca

use of “[f]ailure to maintain a rea sonable deg ree of interest, conce rn

or responsibility as to the child’s welfa re.” 750 I L CS 50/1(D)( b) (West 2008). This se ction of the Adoption Act is disjunctive and failure to show any one of the three elements (intere st,

conce rn, or responsibility ) may be considere d on its own as a basis for unfitness. In re C.E.
, 406 I ll. App. 3d 97, 108, 940 N.E.2d 125, 136 (2010). I n examining the three elements, the
court i s to consider a pare nt’s eff orts to visit and maintain contac t with the children and inquiries into the children’ s welfa re, as well as other in d i ca t ions of interest. Id

. The court must also examine the pare nt’s conduct in the con t ex t o f t he pare nt’s circ umstances. Id

. “Releva nt circ umstan ce s include, for example, difficulty in obtaining transportation, the
pare nt’s [economic status]
, statements made by others to discourag e visitation, and whether the pare nt’s lack of contac t with the children can be attributed to a need to cope with persona l problems rather than indiff ere nce ***.” Id . at 109, 940 N.E.2d at 136. ¶ 29 The only argument that Andre makes to challeng e the trial court’s rul i n g as t o s ection 1(D)( b) of the Adoption Act is th at t h e State failed to prove that he did not maintain

rea sonable interest, conce rn or responsibi lity beca use DCFS did not offe r any service s to Andre afte r the perma

nency g oal was chang ed to termination of pare ntal rig hts. We note that this contention was made without any statutory citation, case law citation, or citation to the

rec ord. The State argues that there are numerous instances where Andre failed to show interest in the twins. The State points out that Andre did not beg in individual thera py service s until J uly 2009, reduc ed the f

reque ncy of his thera

py from we ekly

to twice per

month, and then ended thera

py entirely befor e completion. The State argues that the domestic violence

-10-counseling was the only rec ommended service that Andre completed. Moreove r, Andre was

inconsistent in visiti ng the twins. Casewor ker Br own testified that Andre only attended 50% of the schedule d wee kly visits with the twins. The same was true of his sc heduled monthly visits. He did not avail him self of DCFS’s willingne ss to accommodate his work schedule to fac ilitate weekly

visits. ¶ 30 An d re ar gu es on appea l that he has shown that he can car e for the twins beca use he completed a pare nting clas s , d o mestic violence counseling
, pare nted one of Ericka ’s children who was not his biologica l child, and kept the four other children phy sically and emotionally safe during unsupervised visits. The State points out that the pare nti n g class that Andre completed was independe nt of the service s provided by DCFS. Also, the State points out that Andre ’s re fer ence s to the twins’ siblings are irrele vant to this case

. The Public Guar dian
argues that Andre showed a lack of interest or conce rn in the twins’ welfa re by choosing to stay with Ericka afte r being told repe atedly that his opportunity for reunific ation was tied to both pare nts’ prog ress, so long a s they lived toge ther. Er icka wa s not making pr og ress, y et Andre continued living w ith her. ¶ 31 When we consider the totality of the evidenc e, we cannot say that the trial court’s r uling

as to section 1(D)( b) was ag ainst the manifest weig ht of the evidenc e. A rea sonable person wi th simil ar circ umstances to Andre who was interested in reunific ation with his children would have diligently and enthusiastically involved himself with visiti ng hi s ch i ldren and participating in the s ervic es provided for the benef it of t he fa

mily . The fa ct that Andre did
not even complete i n dividual thera py , the minimum require ment in the proce ss toward reunific ation, clea

rly sh o ws t h at Andre failed to maintain a rea sonable deg ree of interest,

conce rn, or responsibility in the welfa re of the twins. The fac t that Andre failed to complete the service s or show a continued interest and participation in the presc ribed service s cannot be overc ome. We hold that the trial court’s ruling was not ag ainst the manifest weig ht of the evidenc e and will not be overturne d. There fore
, we aff irm the trial court’s ruling that Andre is an unfit pare nt pursuant to section 1(D) (b) of the Adoption Act. ¶ 32 For the fore g oing rea sons, the judgme nt of the circ uit court of Cook County is affirme d.

¶ 33 Affir

med.

-11-