1 

2024 IL App (5th) 230762-U 

NO. 5-23-0762 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

In re DALTON J., a Minor ) Appeal from the 

 ) Circuit Court of 

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

 ) 

Petitioner-Appellee, ) 

 ) No. 20-JA-18 

v. ) 

 ) 

Evlinda J., ) Honorable 

 ) Cord Z. Wittig, 

 Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 PRESIDING JUSTICE VAUGHAN delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Barberis and Boie concurred in the judgment. 

 

 ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Counsel’s motion to withdraw as respondent’s appellate counsel is granted where

no meritorious argument can be raised regarding the trial court’s May 16, 2023,

findings of unfitness or its September 1, 2023, order terminating respondent’s

 parental rights. 

¶ 2 Respondent, Evlinda J., appealed the trial court’s September 1, 2023, order terminating her

parental rights. On appeal, Evlinda’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as Evlinda’s appellate 

counsel and a supporting memorandum, arguing that Evlinda’s appeal presented no potentially 

meritorious issues for review. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). This court provided 

Evlinda ample opportunity to respond to counsel’s motion; however, no response was provided. 

After considering the record and counsel’s supporting memorandum, we grant counsel’s motion 

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).

NOTICE

Decision filed 10/08/24. The 

text of this decision may be 

changed or corrected prior to 

the filing of a Petition for 

Rehearing or the disposition of 

the same.
2 

for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s May 16, 2023, findings of Evlinda’s unfitness 

and September 1, 2023, order terminating Evlinda’s parental rights. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Evlinda and Dallen1 are the biological parents of Dalton, born April 13, 2012. On April 7, 

2020, Dalton was removed from their custody. At the shelter care hearing, Stacy Hefner, a child 

protection specialist with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), 

testified that DCFS received a hotline report alleging that a child was living in a camper where 

methamphetamine was being manufactured. Ms. Hefner called police officers to accompany her 

and investigate the situation at Evlinda and Dallen’s camper in Brookport, Illinois, on April 7, 

2020. Ms. Hefner stated that the inside of the camper smelled, and no utility service was seen. She 

stated that Evlinda denied entry into the camper to either confirm or deny the existence of the 

endangering environmental concerns, and when Dalton came out of the camper, he was very dirty. 

She stated that during the conversation Evlinda’s speech was slurred, and her movements were 

impaired to such extent that Ms. Hefner believed Evlinda was intoxicated. Ms. Hefner testified 

that Dalton was never enrolled in school. Counsel was appointed for Dallen and Evlinda. 

¶ 5 Evlinda advised the court that she did not have her teeth in when DCFS was at the camper, 

that she received monthly Social Security disability payments, and that her back muscle spasms 

interfered with her ability to stand and walk. Dallen and Evlinda also advised the court that they 

had been trying to move for the past nine months, but their lack of a vehicle, due to a prior accident, 

precluded their departure from Illinois. The trial court found probable cause and ordered at least 

two visits with the child each week.

1

Dallen is not a party to this appeal. Information related to him included in this decision is provided 

solely for context in Evlinda’s appeal. 
3 

¶ 6 On June 10, 2020, a Caritas Family Solutions (Caritas) status report was filed with the 

court. Evlinda participated in an integrated assessment and was recommended for services for 

substance abuse, domestic violence as a victim, and mental health. She was also required to ensure 

utilities were in the home, attend visitation, and participate in drug testing. Her visits with Dalton 

were held virtually. During the May 29, 2020, visit, staff believed Evlinda was intoxicated because 

she acted erratically. She rolled her eyes back in her head, was unable to keep her head up, 

continuously popped her jaw back and forth, and sucked on Dallen’s chest. Out of six scheduled 

drug tests, Evlinda participated in one. The test results were positive for methamphetamine and 

amphetamine.

¶ 7 Dalton had few social skills, talked down to women, hated being outside, did not like being 

told “no,” and only wanted to watch television and play video games. He had no fear of strangers 

and used the “n word” and other foul language in the foster home. His assessment revealed that he 

witnessed Dallen’s domestic violence toward Evlinda, including choking and pulling a knife on 

her. Dallen would also spank Dalton with a belt that made him bleed when the buckle hit his skin. 

Dalton stated that the shower did not work in the camper and therefore he used a washcloth to 

bathe. He had not recently seen a doctor and had no vaccines after age four. He was taken to an 

optometrist who found vision problems that were over five years old. 

¶ 8 The adjudicatory hearing was held on July 22, 2020. Testimony was provided by Ms. 

Hefner, Summer Clapp, an officer who accompanied Ms. Hefner to the parents’ camper on April 

7, 2020, and Kelsie Arp, a caseworker from Caritas. Their testimony addressed how Dalton came 

into care and information received thereafter. Evlinda testified about her medical condition and 

the camper’s utilities. Following the hearing, the trial court found the State proved the minor was 

neglected. The trial court’s adjudicatory order found Dalton was neglected because he suffered 
4 

from a lack of support, education, and remedial care pursuant to section 2-3(1)(a) of the Juvenile 

Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a) (West 2020)) and in an 

environment injurious to his health pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act (id. 

§ 2-3(1)(b)). 

¶ 9 The August 11, 2020, Caritas dispositional report indicated that Dalton was placed in 

therapy to help him deal with his past trauma, was very smart, and was doing better with the foster 

family. The report indicated that Evlinda was only interested in participating in services if they 

were Christian-based services. The parents only missed one visit; however, during most visits, the 

parents talked to case aides more than Dalton. The report recommended the parents complete their 

service plans and a goal of return home in one year. 

¶ 10 The dispositional hearing was held on September 23, 2020. Both parents agreed to the 

dispositional report recommendations but requested two hours with Dalton once a week instead of 

two one-hour sessions twice a week. The request was granted. The written dispositional order 

found Evlinda was unable to care for the minor child. 

¶ 11 On November 17, 2020, Caritas filed the service plan issued by DCFS. The report noted 

that Dalton, who was eight years old, was doing well in school. He read at an eighth-grade level, 

was making friends, developing social skills, and growing more rounded in his education. He 

reported that he loved school and was happy to be where he was. He was also entering counseling. 

He was with a traditional foster family. When Dallen and Evlinda were assessed for drug and 

mental health services, both denied taking drugs or having mental health issues and therefore no 

services were recommended. The agency requested reassessment with accurate information being 

provided. Evlinda denied instances of domestic abuse and had not taken the domestic abuse 

assessment.
5 

¶ 12 On December 8, 2020, DCFS filed a permanency hearing report. The report revealed that 

Evlinda had not yet agreed to a reassessment. She had 14 scheduled drug tests. She failed to appear 

for nine of the tests and tested positive for amphetamine or methamphetamine on four of the five 

tests for which she appeared. She blamed the positive drug test results on Dallen, stating that he 

“was using” and slipping it into her without her knowledge. Evlinda was not engaged in any 

domestic violence services although she reported increased domestic violence after Dalton was 

removed. She denied offers to take her to the women’s shelter. While she regularly attended visits 

with Dalton, both she and Dallen would blame Dalton for his removal and claim that he lied to the 

caseworkers. This made it difficult for Dalton to communicate openly. Dalton became more distant 

in the foster home after the visits. He continued to do well in school. The agency requested 

psychological evaluations of both parents. A permanency hearing on December 16, 2020, revealed 

the parents were heating their camper with a toaster oven and hair dryers. The permanency goal 

remained the same.

¶ 13 On January 14, 2021, DCFS suspended the parents’ visitation. Correspondence indicated 

the suspension was in Dalton’s best interest and was due to the parents’ failure to adhere to the 

visitation guidelines. Dalton exhibited increased verbal and physical aggression in the foster home 

following the visits and his counselor recommended suspension of the visits. A copy of the 

counselor’s correspondence was attached to the agency’s correspondence to the parents. 

¶ 14 Caritas filed a permanency report on March 10, 2021. The parents were not reporting for 

drug testing and reportedly moved to Paducah, Kentucky, after their camper was impounded on 

March 5, 2021. Evlinda had not been reassessed and stated she was entering inpatient rehabilitation 

in Atlanta, Georgia. Evlinda was arrested on March 2, 2021, and appeared to be under the influence 

of drugs based on the police report. Drug use was also indicated based on a voicemail left by 
6 

Evlinda in which she claimed Dallen stole her Social Security money and left her. She also stated 

that Dallen was hallucinating that “people were hiding under the hotel bed and saying things to 

him.” Evlinda was not engaged in domestic violence services. The parents continued to speak 

negatively to Dalton during visits and, upon the request of his counselor, visits were suspended. 

Dalton was doing much better while visits were suspended. 

¶ 15 On April 16, 2021, the guardian ad litem (GAL) filed a petition to permanently suspend 

visitation. The petition indicated that Dalton was not doing well following visits with his parents 

and the visits were affecting his behavior. It also noted a statement from Evlinda during visitation 

that she needed to “eat her scabs because she is a vampire.” On April 21, 2021, Evlinda’s lawyer 

filed an objection arguing that the petition was based on the same letter from Dalton’s counselor 

in January 2021, and the counselor may no longer feel that way. It further argued that the GAL 

was requesting permanent cessation as opposed to a suspension and claimed children regularly 

experienced divided loyalties between the biological and foster parents. 

¶ 16 On May 15, 2021, Caritas filed a permanency report that indicated Evlinda was in a 

substance abuse facility in Atlanta and that mental health services were not provided at that facility. 

Evlinda was not participating in domestic violence services. The agency allowed three virtual 

visits, but Evlinda only appeared for one. After she missed the last two visits, Dalton stated that 

he no longer wanted visits with either parent. Dalton was now nine years old. He was participating 

in baseball, doing terrific in school, and interacting with the neighborhood children. His foster 

parents said Dalton was quiet and uncooperative during the three weeks that virtual visitation was 

reinstated. His behavior improved when the visits ceased. 

¶ 17 At the permanency hearing on May 26, 2021, the court was advised that the case passed 

legal screening as to both parents on May 21, 2021. The court considered a goal change but, after 
7 

hearing arguments, did not change the goal and left visitation to the discretion of the agency. The 

court’s June 9, 2021, permanency order found Evlinda made reasonable efforts but not reasonable 

progress. 

¶ 18 Caritas filed a permanency report on September 16, 2021. The report revealed that Evlinda 

left the Atlanta inpatient facility against medical advice after two weeks. She was not enrolled in 

any services and an incident occurred in Carbondale, Illinois, on July 9, 2021, but no details were 

provided. Evlinda stated she was leaving Dallen and was requesting full custody of Dalton. She 

scheduled a visit with the caseworker in July but failed to appear. Two video visits took place. 

Dalton said he no longer wanted to attend parental visits. He was excelling in school, got his hair 

cut, and no longer wanted anything to do with his parents. He stated that he wanted his foster 

parents to adopt him. The agency recommended a change in permanency goal to substitute care 

pending determination of termination of parental rights. Updated correspondence from Dalton’s 

counselor stated Dalton was doing better without biological parent visits and his nightmares and 

outbursts lessened when visits were suspended. Based on the counselor’s letter, the agency again 

suspended visitation. 

¶ 19 On December 15, 2021, the parents requested an in camera interview with Dalton due to 

correspondence from his counselor recommending cessation of visitation. The motion argued that 

Dalton was old enough to speak his own wishes to the court. On December 17, 2021, the trial court 

interviewed Dalton. During that interview, Dalton stated that he no longer wanted to visit with his 

parents and was glad they no longer lived in Illinois. He talked about their drug and alcohol use, 

as well as their physical abuse against each other, the grandparents, and him. A hearing was held 

on both the recommendation to change the permanency goal and discontinue visitation. Following 

the hearing, the court changed the permanency goal to substitute care pending determination of 
8 

termination of parental rights and discontinued visitation. The January 10, 2022, permanency order 

found that neither Evlinda, nor Dallen, made reasonable effort or responsible progress. 

¶ 20 On May 25, 2022, a permanency hearing report was filed indicating that Evlinda was now 

participating in services. She was in mental health, substance abuse, and domestic violence classes. 

She completed her parenting classes; however, she and Dallen fought before and after the parenting 

classes. Evlinda’s March 2022 drug test was negative. The parents remained a couple and were 

looking for Section 8 housing. Dalton was excelling at school, had made friends, and adamantly 

refused to attend visits with his parents. He stated that he wanted to stay with his foster family 

forever, and if he was returned to his parents, he would run away. The recommended goal change 

was for adoption 

¶ 21 On May 27, 2022, the State filed a petition to terminate parental rights. With regard to 

Evlinda, the State alleged she was unfit for (1) failing to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, 

concern, or responsibility for the child’s welfare pursuant to section 1(D)(b) of the Adoption Act 

(750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2022)); (2) failing to protect the child from conditions within her 

environment injurious to the child’s welfare pursuant to section 1(D)(g) of the Adoption Act 

(id.§ 1(D)(g)); and (3) failing to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the 

basis of the child’s removal for any nine-month period following the adjudication of a neglected 

or abused child pursuant to section 1(D)(m)(i) of the Adoption Act (id. § 1(D)(m)(i)). At the 

hearing on May 27, 2022, the petition was read to the parents along with their rights under the Act. 

Both parents stated they understood what the State was alleging and their rights under the Act. The 

fitness hearing was scheduled for August 26, 2022. 

¶ 22 The August 24, 2022, permanency report revealed that Evlinda was not participating in 

mental health or substance abuse services. She said she was taking online domestic violence 
9 

classes but had not signed the consent necessary to allow the agency to determine her status with 

the class. She completed the parenting class but had no housing. Dalton continued to refuse to 

attend visits. The last five scheduled drug tests revealed trace values of THC on March 25, 2022, 

negative for drugs on April 29, 2022, and failures to appear for the July 28 and August 17, 2022, 

testing dates. As to the last testing date, Evlinda told the agency she had no transportation to attend 

but that she had a psychological assessment appointment the same day. Dalton was 10 years old 

and in a potential adoptive placement. He had a positive relationship with the foster parents and 

his foster siblings. He and the foster family repeatedly stated that he wanted them to adopt him, 

and they wanted to adopt him. He continued to excel in school, had friends, and was involved in 

sports. He was in counseling that was proving beneficial and continued to make progress. The 

report noted the length of time the case was open and the lack of progress by the biological parents 

during that time. The agency recommended adoption once parental rights were terminated. 

¶ 23 Due to a requested continuance by Dallen’s counsel, the fitness hearing was held on 

October 28, 2022. The State filed a notice clarifying that its petition to terminate parental rights 

was based on the periods from July 23, 2020, through December 17, 2021, and December 18, 

2021, through October 28, 2022. The dates were the same for both parents. 

¶ 24 Constance Hernandez, a foster care supervisor for Caritas, testified that she became 

involved in Dalton’s case approximately three months after he was removed from the home. She 

was the supervisor on the case for about a year before the hearing. She stated that the parents’ 

services included obtaining a mental health assessment and completing any recommended 

treatment, obtaining a substance abuse assessment and completing any recommended treatment, 

participating in drug screens, engaging in parenting classes, engaging in domestic violence 

counseling, and finding and sustaining stable housing. They were also required to cooperate with 
10 

the agency. She explained why two mental health assessments were required for both parents due 

to their failure to provide true information and history at the initial assessment. Evlinda was not 

forthcoming on either the first or second mental health assessments and therefore had no 

recommendation for counseling. Both parents completed the substance abuse assessment but were 

not forthcoming based on the drug testing results that were received. The drug tests taken June 24, 

2020, August 19, 2020, September 21, 2020, and November 16, 2020, were positive for 

methamphetamines for both parents. Based on those results, the agency recommended substance 

abuse treatment. Neither parent had completed that treatment either. The parents did participate in 

a drug screen in March 2022 but were inconsistent in returning from Tennessee to take additional 

tests. Trace amounts of THC were found in the March testing results and she noted that Tennessee 

was not a state that legalized marijuana. Evlinda’s April 2022 drug testing was negative.

Thereafter, Dallen’s attorney objected on the basis of hearsay to Ms. Hernandez’s testimony 

related to Dallen’s drug testing, the parents’ failure to appear for drug testing, and eventually, all 

the information in the Caritas permanency report. The court found the reports were inadmissible 

hearsay but stated it would allow the State to obtain an affidavit to satisfy the modified business 

record exception to the hearsay rule. The court continued the hearing until January 27, 2023. On 

January 25, 2023, the State moved for a continuance due to the unavailability of some of its 

witnesses. The motion was granted, and the fitness hearing was rescheduled for May 16, 2023. 

¶ 25 On April 27, 2023, Caritas filed an updated DCFS family service plan. The report noted 

that the parents lived in Tennessee and would not sign consents that would allow the agency to 

verify service participation. Dalton was now 10 years old. He completed his counseling and was 

discharged successfully. No medical services beyond immunizations were necessary. He loved 

school, was making social connections, was a straight A student, and was reading at a ninth-grade
11 

level. He was also participating in summer baseball, Boy Scouts, and band. He no longer called 

his biological parents “mom and dad.” He spoke of them using their first names. He had a strong 

bond with his foster parents and foster siblings. Evlinda was reported as unsatisfactory for all the 

recommended services. 

¶ 26 The fitness hearing resumed on May 16, 2023. The case was called three times. Dallen was 

in jail in Tennessee due to domestic assault and aggravated assault charges. Evlinda testified that 

she was the victim in both assaults, and she confirmed that the incidents occurred. She was trying 

to get the cases dismissed because she believed the issue “should be in God’s hands, not the 

court’s” hands. After denying Dallen’s motion to continue the hearing, the court found Dallen in 

default and proceeded with the fitness hearing solely as to Evlinda. 

¶ 27 The State recalled Constance Hernandez as a witness. She reiterated her previous testimony 

and advised that she left her employment with Caritas on January 26, 2023. During the time of her 

employment, the only service for which Evlinda was marked as “satisfactory” was cooperation 

with the agency, and that was only at the beginning of the case. Evlinda completed the domestic 

violence services; however, she returned to the perpetrator of the domestic violence. Visitation last 

occurred in September prior to the court issuing an order denying visitation in December. Multiple 

attempts were made to assist Evlinda in leaving her abuser, but she would not accept the assistance. 

Evlinda did leave Dallen and entered treatment in Georgia, but Dallen went to Georgia, and they 

reunited. She stated that Evlinda participated in the assessments but did not participate in the 

recommended services. She further explained that the underlying basis of the visitation termination 

was Dalton’s fear of his father and his mother’s acquiescence to the father’s statements and 

behavior. Ms. Hernandez authored the report dated December 8, 2020, based on the six prior 

months. That report revealed that Evlinda tested positive for methamphetamines on four of the five 
12 

drug tests and did not engage in domestic violence services during that period. Ms. Hernandez also 

authored the March 19, 2021, report based on the six months prior. Evlinda had mental health and 

substance abuse assessments but did not participate in the recommended services for those issues. 

She refused to participate in drug testing and did not participate in any domestic violence services 

during that period. Ms. Hernandez also authored the May 25, 2022, permanency report, which was 

based on the previous six months. Evlinda was marked as unsatisfactory for every recommended 

service. Ms. Hernadez found Evlinda failed to make reasonable efforts or substantial progress 

during that period. The August 24, 2022, report revealed that Evlinda obtained a mental health 

assessment but did not follow through with the recommended services. Ms. Hernandez testified 

that during the three years the case was open, the parents were never stable enough to have Dalton 

returned. 

¶ 28 The State called Marcus Clarry, the lead foster care manager at Caritas. He was Dalton’s 

caseworker from August 2020 to May 2021. Mr. Clarry identified the service plans he authored 

that were dated June 9, 2020, and November 17, 2020. During those periods Evlinda was 

cooperative with the agency but failed to participate in any recommended services. The 

assessments were performed outside of the agency network to prevent the agency from providing 

underlying information related to the case. She was rated as unsatisfactory for all her services, 

except communicating with the agency. He stated that a domestic abuse incident occurred between 

Dallen and Evlinda in December 2020. An order of protection was obtained for Evlinda. She later 

bailed Dallen out of jail and they resumed living together. He stated that neither parent was 

compliant with the regularly scheduled drug testing and the camper only had electricity because 

an extension cord was running from the landlord’s house. When Mr. Clarry visited the home in 

December, it was heated by curling irons and hair dryers hanging from the ceiling, and an open 
13 

toaster oven. Water was provided via a hookup from the landlord’s house. The parents left Illinois 

after Dallen got out of jail and moved to Kentucky. They were in Atlanta, Georgia, when Mr. 

Clarry handed off the case. To his knowledge, they never returned to Illinois. Both parents were 

unsatisfactory with their services while he had the case and continued to live together. He was the 

caseworker from August 17, 2020, to May 17, 2021, and during that time neither parent made 

reasonable effort nor reasonable progress to correct the conditions for which Dalton was removed 

during that period. He stated that he offered to drive Evlinda to the Carbondale women’s shelter, 

but she would not go. Evlinda told him that she would not leave Dallen because they had a dog 

together and most shelters would not allow the animal. However, Mr. Clarry stated that when he 

visited the camper, the dog was malnourished and slept in a cage with no hay outside in the winter. 

He did not believe the animal’s well-being was a priority for Evlinda. The State asked the court to 

take judicial notice of its past orders and its interview with Dalton. Thereafter, the State rested.

¶ 29 Evlinda testified that she currently lived in Clarksville, Tennessee. She stated that they 

never cooked methamphetamine at the camper. She admitted doing drugs years ago and stated that 

her prior drug testing was previously thrown out by the preceding judge and her prior attorney. 

She stated that she gave advance notice to the agency where she would be having the assessments 

performed. None of her assessment results required her to perform services. She stated that she 

and Dallen had a great relationship until Dalton was taken. Thereafter, the relationship went 

downhill until Dallen ended up in jail and made death threats, and then, she was no longer with 

him. She stated they agreed to homeschool Dalton, and he was above the third-grade level when 

DCFS took him. She disputed Mr. Clarry’s testimony that he offered to drive her to Carbondale to 

the women’s shelter. She stated that she had no way to get to the women’s shelter. She eventually 

secured a residence in Tennessee where she could perform her services. She was in the program 
14 

for six months, which was as long as she was allowed to stay without a child present. This was 

from July 2022 to January 2023. She stated that Caritas was aware of her residence at the facility. 

She testified that she planned to divorce Dallen and stated that jail was too good for him. She 

believed she made wonderful progress with her case. She stated Dallen mentally abused her, and 

it was his fault that she did not complete her services. She was currently living in a motel and 

paying for it with her Social Security check. 

¶ 30 Following Evlinda’s testimony and arguments by the parties, the trial court stated, 

 “The simple fact is that after [Dalton] was brought into care, his parents left 

him. His parents left him in Illinois; traveled to multiple states; traveled to states 

where it made it difficult for them to come back to Illinois to attend court dates; 

traveled to states where it made it nearly impossible, even though they were 

probably aware of it, to obtain services designed to reunify their family. There was 

no evidence that *** wasn’t an intentional move on their part. 

 So[,] I do find the State has proved by clear and convincing evidence that 

respondent mother failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, 

responsibility as to the child’s welfare.” 

¶ 31 The court continued by stating, 

 “Harking back to what Dalton told me and testimony that I’ve heard at 

previous hearings, Dallen *** is an abuser. There is no doubt. He is a violent 

person. It’s his way or the highway and I understand it’s a cycle of violence; I do. 

You see it every day in this line of work. There were opportunities presented to 

remove herself from that situation. She didn’t avail herself of those. So[,] I find that 

she did allow Dalton to remain in the presence of an abuser and she did fail to take 
15 

measures to protect him from serious harm. So[,] the State has proven by clear and 

convincing evidence that respondent mother failed to protect the child from 

conditions within his environment injurious to the child’s welfare. 

 When I look subjectively at the actual efforts made by [Evlinda] to correct 

the conditions that required Dalton to be brough into care and consider whether that 

level of effort is reasonable given her circumstances, I note and totally understand 

that she is not a wealthy woman, has virtually been homeless throughout this whole 

process, probably a low support system. But the case has been open now for more 

than three years and not a lot, if anything, has been done. Hardly anything has been 

done to correct the conditions. She *** is living in hotels. The mental health hasn’t 

been—she’s got the assessments[,] but the treatment hasn’t been complete, 

substance abuse hasn’t been complete. I’m not certain if domestic violence was 

complete. She testified that she did complete a 24-week session. But that, that’s so 

very minimal when looking at the fact that the case has been open for 37 months. 

 Her future plan, and I know it’s tough. I believe it’s tough. But her future 

plan is unrealistic. She is currently living in a hotel[,] and she is hoping to get with 

the church to get an apartment so that Dalton can have his own room. So[,] it’s not 

anything definite at this point in time for him.

 So[,] I do find the State has proven by clear and convincing evidence that 

respondent mother has failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions 

that were the basis for the removal of the child form the parents during the ninemonth period previously specified by the State. So[,] I do find that [Evlinda] is unfit 

to have the minor child.” 
16 

Thereafter, the court set the case for a best interest hearing on June 30, 2023. 

¶ 32 On June 16, 2023, Evlinda’s attorney moved for reconsideration of the trial court’s fitness 

findings based on a change in circumstances. Those circumstances included: (1) Evlinda’s current 

residency in Illinois at the Beaumont Motel in Metropolis, Illinois; (2) her recent removal of Dallen 

as the payee of her Social Security checks; (3) her plan to divorce Dallen once she met the Illinois 

residency requirements; (4) her plan to find employment to supplement her Social Security 

income; and (5) her plan to apply for assistance from the Massac County Housing Authority which 

she was never able to do when she was with Dallen. Dallen also filed a motion for reconsideration 

and moved to continue the hearing. His motion to continue was granted and the best interest 

hearing, and the motions for reconsideration, were set for hearing on August 25, 2023. 

¶ 33 On August 17, 2023, Caritas filed a status report. The agency had no contact with Evlinda 

since the May 16, 2023, hearing, and her last known address was in Tennessee. Dalton was now 

11 years old and doing well with his foster family. He was excelling in school and blossomed 

while in foster care. He was outgoing, witty, and adventurous. He was in sixth grade and read at a 

ninth-grade level. He was discharged successfully from counseling. He enjoyed living with the 

foster family and repeatedly told caseworkers that he would like to be adopted by the foster family. 

He has also indicated that he has no desire to be in contact with either of his biological parents. He 

had been in foster care for 1233 days. 

¶ 34 The best interest hearing was held on August 25, 2023. The court first addressed the two 

pending motions for reconsideration. Evlinda’s attorney stated she had nothing to add to her 

motion because the parties had reconciled. Thereafter, the court denied Evlinda’s motion for 

reconsideration. The court also denied Dallen’s motion for reconsideration and moved to the best 

interest hearing. 
17 

¶ 35 The GAL provided an oral report based on his conversation with Dalton earlier that day at 

Dalton’s school. The GAL stated everything remained the same as when the court spoke with him. 

Dalton’s feelings had not changed regarding his parents, and he did not wish to have any contact 

with either parent, even when asked separately about each parent. He stated that he loved his foster 

family. He was currently in the sixth grade and doing great. He enjoyed his current homeroom 

teacher, and his favorite subject was science. He stated that he wanted his current foster family to 

adopt him. The GAL also spoke with the foster mother. She stated that she and the maternal 

grandparents had a great working relationship, and the grandparents saw Dalton every other week 

during the summer. They also saw him during holidays and every other weekend, which she 

believed was in Dalton’s best interests. She further stated that if they were allowed to adopt Dalton, 

they would continue to foster that relationship, noting that the grandparents had a restraining order 

against Dallen. The grandparents also supported adoption by the foster family.

¶ 36 The State called Marcus Clarry as a witness who testified that Evlinda had not contacted 

the agency since the fitness hearing. He stated that while Evlinda’s attorney stated that Evlinda 

completed services, no documentation supporting that claim was provided to his office. Mr. Clarry 

met with Dalton three times since the fitness hearing. Dalton was doing very well and was very 

intelligent. He was involved in his school activities. He loved science, math, and reading. He was 

very advanced with reading. He was also in the Boy Scouts. He tried baseball over the summer but 

did not enjoy it and preferred being in the wilderness with the Boy Scouts. He considered the foster 

family his family and had several friends at school. Mr. Clarry stated that the foster family provided 

shelter, clothing, and food for Dalton. They also maintained his doctors’ appointments. Dalton had 

been with the foster family since July 2021. He was secure with the foster family, and they showed 

him great affection. He believed it was in Dalton’s best interest for the foster family to adopt him. 
18 

On cross-examination, Mr. Clarry agreed that the foster family received a stipend from the State 

of Illinois because they were a licensed foster family. He did not know if Dalton received any 

money from his mother’s disability checks because he was a dependent. He stated that he had seen 

Dalton’s bedroom, and it contained a bed, clothes, and all his necessities. The foster mother stated 

she was open to Evlinda communicating with Dalton, but Dalton did not want to communicate 

with Evlinda or Dallen. He stated the foster family was ready to adopt Dalton as soon as it was 

able. Thereafter, the State rested.

¶ 37 Dallen’s attorney called Evlinda as an adverse witness. She disputed Mr. Clarry’s 

testimony regarding their efforts to contact the agency. She said she tried to obtain a picture of 

Dalton, but no one would return her call. She also contacted them to clarify the correct address so 

she could send presents to Dalton. She stated that she sent a $1000 VISA gift card for Dalton to 

Caritas in Carterville but did not know if it was ever given to him. She was unsure if she had a 

history of calls on her phone. Dallen interjected stating the calls would be there. She stated that 

she called the agency at least once a month. She received an inheritance and was using some of 

that money to send to Dalton. She did not know the current caseworker. She said she had the same 

phone number since May 2023 and had plenty of minutes on her phone if the agency called. 

¶ 38 Dallen testified that he currently lived in Metropolis. He said he was present three times 

when Evlinda unsuccessfully tried to call the agency. He stated that Evlinda resided with him in 

Metropolis at Motel 6. They had been there a couple of days and were previously at the Super 8 

for a couple months. He said he was in jail for approximately two weeks after the fitness hearing 

and then was released. 

¶ 39 Following arguments, the court stated, 
19 

 “The situation is that you were in the middle of a juvenile case, voluntarily 

moved to Tennessee. There were multiple residences, you were living in a camper, 

living in hotels, and that model of life has continued on to today. [Dallen] has been 

incarcerated repeatedly. In the Motion to Reconsider, you were living in the *** 

Baymont down by the river. Then you were at the Super 8, now Motel 6. 

 You know it’s been argued that there was a lack of interest from the 

caseworkers, but *** [w]hen you cut out of the state in the middle of a juvenile 

case, it really hamstrings the agency. 

 *** 

 There is *** no doubt that Dalton is a super smart kid. I’ve heard him talk. 

He was intelligent, precocious, and mature. And to me that means that I should just 

give what he wants and says even more weight, if he’s able to intelligently state 

reasons why he wants to do something or not do something instead of just the 

typical answers you get from little kids, then his statement should be afforded more 

weight. 

 The case has been going on for 40 months now. He’s been in care for 1,233 

days, and there is still no light at the end of the tunnel for return home. It’s just 

blackness at the end of that tunnel as I see it. 

 So[,] at this point in time Dalton is thriving. He’s absolutely thriving and it’s 

not just economic thriving but he’s stable. He’s in a loving home. He feels as if they 

are his family. They love him back. 
20 

 So[,] I do believe that the State has proven by a preponderance of the 

evidence that it’s in Dalton’s best interest that parental rights be terminated. So[,] 

the State’s petition is granted.” 

Evlinda timely appealed. 

¶ 40 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 41 We must first address the delay in the issuance of this order. This case is subject to an 

expedited disposition pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a)(5) (eff. July 1, 2018). Rule 

311(a)(5) requires the appellate court to issue its decision within 150 days after the notice of appeal 

is filed, except for good cause shown. Here, the notice of appeal was filed on September 8, 2023, 

making our decision due by February 5, 2024. Although this court makes every effort to comply 

with the Rule 311(a)(5) deadline, respondent’s initial appointed appellate counsel failed to file any 

brief despite this court’s orders to do so. Due to appellate counsel’s lack of compliance with this 

court’s orders, alternative appellate counsel was appointed, and upon counsel’s request, additional 

time was granted to file respondent’s brief. Respondent’s counsel filed an Anders brief requesting 

leave to withdraw as counsel, and therefore, additional time was granted to respondent to reply to 

the Anders brief. Accordingly, we find good cause exists for filing this decision beyond the 

deadline. 

¶ 42 On appeal, respondent’s counsel argues that no meritorious argument can be presented in 

support of Evlinda’s appeal. Counsel argues that two issues were considered, but counsel found 

no support for the issues in the record. Those potential issues were the trial court’s findings of 

unfitness and its termination of Evlinda’s parental rights. We consider each potential issue. 

¶ 43 Termination of parental rights proceedings are governed by the Juvenile Court Act (705 

ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2022)) and the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/0.01 et seq. (West 2022)). 
21 

After a petition for involuntary termination is filed under the Juvenile Court Act, a two-step process 

is required for parental rights termination. See 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2022). “The State 

must first establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent is an unfit person under one 

or more of the grounds of unfitness enumerated in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 

50/1(D) (West 2018)).” In re J.C., 2020 IL App (2d) 200063, ¶ 27. 

¶ 44 “In order to reverse a trial court’s finding that there was clear and convincing evidence of 

parental unfitness, the reviewing court must conclude that the trial court’s finding was against the 

manifest weight of the evidence.” In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 208 (2001). This occurs only when 

“the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent.” In re N.G., 2018 IL 121939, ¶ 29. “Where the 

evidence is in conflict, we defer to the trial court’s disposition regarding factual findings and 

credibility assessments, because the trial court is in the best position to make these 

determinations.” In re S.T., 2021 IL App (5th) 210077, ¶ 68. Because each ground set forth in 

section 1(D) provides a discrete basis for a finding of unfitness, affirmation of any one of the 

grounds is sufficient to affirm the finding of unfitness. In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198, 217 (2002). 

¶ 45 Here, the trial court found Evlinda unfit on all three grounds alleged by the State. The 

grounds were (1) a failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as 

to Dalton’s welfare; (2) failure to protect Dalton from conditions within his environment injurious 

to his welfare; and (3) and failure to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were 

the basis of Dalton’s removal during any nine-month period alleged by the State. See 750 ILCS 

50/1(D)(b), (g), (m) (West 2022).

¶ 46 The first ground, i.e., a failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or 

responsibility as to Dalton’s welfare, contains disjunctive language and therefore any of these three 

elements may be considered the basis for unfitness. In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d 239, 259 
22 

(2004). When examining allegations under this ground, the trial court must focus on the parent’s 

reasonable efforts, as opposed to the parent’s success. Id. More specifically, the court must 

consider any circumstances that made it difficult for the parent to visit, communicate with, or show 

interest in the child. Id. Noncompliance with a service plan is also considered for this ground. Id. 

¶ 47 Here, respondent repeatedly showed a lack of interest in Dalton. When visitation was 

offered, she either failed to appear, or when she did appear, spent the time talking with case aides, 

berating Dalton for telling the agency the truth about his life with his parents, and/or would act in 

a manner that led the case aides to believe she was intoxicated. No evidence exists that indicate 

Evlinda sent cards or gifts to Dalton on his birthday or for holidays beyond an alleged gift card 

sent over three years after Dalton was removed from the home. The record is also replete with 

Evlinda’s failure to comply with her service plan. Although assessments were taken, Evlinda never 

received the recommended mental health treatment. While she completed a parenting class, she 

fought with Dallen before and after each class. 

¶ 48 As to domestic abuse, Evlinda declined offers of transportation to a women’s shelter. While 

she contended that she did complete domestic violence treatment, no documentation was ever 

submitted in support of the claim because she refused to sign the consents that would allow the 

agency to monitor that progress. Further, even if she did complete the service, she continued to 

reside with Dallen after completing the service despite admitting, under oath, that she was, at least 

twice, the victim of his domestic abuse. The record also clearly established that Evlinda never had 

stable and suitable housing as required by her service plan. 

¶ 49 Equally clear, as noted by the trial court, was the fact that after Dalton was taken into care, 

Evlinda left him in Illinois and traveled to Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia. Those actions made 

it difficult for her to appear in court or visit with Dalton and equally difficult for her to participate 
23 

in services offered by the agency that would assist her in completing her service plan that would 

allow her to reunite the family. 

¶ 50 Given the record, we agree that no meritorious argument can be made regarding the trial 

court’s finding of unfitness pursuant to section 1(D)(b) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b)

(West 2022)). The record fails to clearly demonstrate that the opposite result was proper which is 

required to show the trial court’s findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re 

D.D., 196 Ill. 2d 405, 417 (2001). Clear and convincing evidence supporting a single ground for 

unfitness is sufficient to affirm the trial court’s finding of unfitness. Id. at 422. Accordingly, we 

agree that no meritorious argument can be raised regarding the trial court’s finding of unfitness. 

¶ 51 After a trial court finds the parent unfit, the cause proceeds to the second step and the trial 

court determines whether it is in the best interest of the child to terminate parental rights. In re 

Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1052, 1071 (2006). At this proceeding, the “issue is no longer whether 

parental rights can be terminated; the issue is whether, in light of the child’s needs, parental rights 

should be terminated.” (Emphases in original.) In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 364 (2004). The focus 

shifts to “the child’s interest in a stable, loving home life.” Id. 

¶ 52 In reaching its best interest determination, the trial court must consider, in the context of 

the child’s age and developmental needs, the following statutory factors: 

“(1) the child’s physical safety and welfare; (2) the development of the child’s 

identity; (3) the child’s background and ties, including familial, cultural, and 

religious; (4) the child’s sense of attachments, including love, security, familiarity, 

and continuity of affection, and the least-disruptive placement alternative; (5) the 

child’s wishes; (6) the child’s community ties; (7) the child’s need for permanence, 

including the need for stability and continuity of relationships with parental figures 
24 

and siblings; (8) the uniqueness of every family and child; (9) the risks related to 

substitute care; and (10) the preferences of the persons available to care for the 

child.” In re Jay. H., 395 Ill. App. 3d 1063, 1071 (2009). 

Additional factors include “ ‘the nature and length of the child’s relationship with the present 

caretaker’ and the effect that a change in placement would have upon the emotional and 

psychological well-being of the child.” In re Austin W., 214 Ill. 2d 31, 50 (2005) (quoting In re 

Violetta B., 210 Ill. App. 3d 521, 534 (1991)), abrogated on other grounds by In re M.M., 2016 IL 

119932, ¶ 31. “[N]o factor is dispositive.” In re Austin W., 214 Ill. 2d at 50. A court’s best interest 

finding will not be reversed unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Jay. 

H., 395 Ill. App. 3d at 1071. 

¶ 53 On appeal, Evlinda’s counsel argues that no meritorious argument exists regarding the trial 

court’s finding that it was in the best interest of Dalton to terminate Evlinda’s parental rights. We 

agree. While the trial court did not specifically address each of the statutory factors in either its 

oral pronouncement or its written order, no such requirement exists. In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 

3d at 263 (“our law is clear that a trial court need not articulate any specific rationale for its 

decision”). 

¶ 54 Here, even without addressing each statutory factor, the court clearly revealed the basis for 

its decision. The court addressed its prior in camera interview with Dalton and found him 

sufficiently intelligent and mature to decide where he wanted to live. It noted that Dalton was 

“absolutely thriving” in his current environment and was stable and loved. He felt that his foster 

family was his family, and they loved him back. The court also noted the fact that Dalton had been 

in foster care for over 1233 days and there was “no light at the end of the tunnel for return home.” 
25 

¶ 55 In addition to the court’s oral findings, nothing was submitted to rebut the evidence 

revealing that Dalton was properly fed and sheltered, his medical needs were met, he loved his 

school and friends, and his extracurricular activities. Nor was any evidence submitted that 

indicated any risk to Dalton remaining in substitute care. After consideration of the statutory 

factors, we cannot find that the trial court’s determination that Dalton’s best interests were best 

served by terminating Evlinda’s parental rights was against the manifest weight of the evidence,

and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no meritorious argument could be raised regarding 

the trial court’s finding that it was in Dalton’s best interests to terminate Evlinda’s parental rights.

¶ 56 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 57 On this record, no meritorious argument can be raised regarding the trial court’s finding 

Evlinda unfit and that it was in Dalton’s best interest to terminate her parental rights. Accordingly, 

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s May 16, 2023, order finding 

Evlinda unfit and September 1, 2023, order finding it was in Dalton’s best interest to terminate 

Evlinda’s parental rights. 

 

¶ 58 Motion granted; judgment affirmed.