## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## RE P O R T S Appellate Court

In re Addison R. , 2013 IL App (2d) 121318

Appellate Court Caption In re ADDI SON R., a Minor (The People of the State of I l l i n o is, P etitioner-Appe llee, v. Meg an Z
., Respondent-Appe llant (Rodney R

. , Respondent)).

District & N o. Second District Docke t No. 2-12-1318

Filed Marc h 21, 2013

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 termination of responde nt’s pare ntal rig hts based on a finding of unfitness due to depra

vity was up held, since her convictions for
ag g ravated battery to a police office r and ag g ravated flee ing following an incident in which she ing ested c ocaine , started dr iving a nd then re fused
to stop for police demonstrated an inhere nt defic iency of moral sense and

rec titude, a total disreg ard for her child’s welfa re and a complete lack of
respe ct for the welfa

re of other pe rsons.

Dec ision Under Review Appea l from the Circuit Court of Winnebag o County
, No. 10-JA-155; the Hon. Mary

L inn Gree n, J udg e, pre siding.

J udg ment Affir med.Counsel on

Appea l Michae l W. R aridon, of Roc kford, f or appe llant.

J oseph P

. Br

uscato, S tate’s Attorney
, of R ockfor d (L awr ence M. Ba uer

a n d M a tt h ew J

. Schmidt, both of State’s Attorney s Appellate Pro s e c uto r ’ s Offic e, of c ounsel), for

the People.

Panel J USTI CE Z ENOF F de livered the judgme nt of the cour t, with opinion.
J ustices J org ensen a

nd Spence c oncurr ed in the judg ment and opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 Respondent-mother, Meg an Z
., appea ls from the trial court’s judgme nt te rminatingher
pare ntal rig hts to her daughter, Addison R. Respondent-father, Rodney R., u l t imately
consente d to Addison’s adoption by a pater nal aunt; he is not a p ar t y t o t h is appea l. Respondent-mother a

rgues only that the trial court’s finding that she was unfit was ag ainst the manife st weig ht of the evide nce. F or the followingrea sons, we af firm.

¶ 2 BA CKGROUND ¶ 3 Addison was born on A pril 25, 2008. Fr om J uly

21, 2009, until J une 1, 2010, Addison and her pare nts wer e involved in “ intact service s” manag ed by the Depa rtment of Children and F amily Service s (DCFS). Addison initially came to DCFS’s attention on J uly 5, 2009, when it rec eived a hotline telephone call about domestic vi o l en ce betwee n responde ntmother and responde nt-fathe r, during wh ic h r e s p o n d e nt-fathe r “beat up [respondent-mother] in the prese nce of their daughter.” Respondent-mother als o h ad a long- term coca ine addiction. DC FS i n s t ituted a safe ty plan under which responde nt-mother and responde ntfa t h er voluntarily place d Addison with a pater nal aunt, Tong ela W. During Addison’s 1 place ment with Tong ela, responde nt-mother eng ag ed in mental-he alth and substance- abuse
treatment prog rams. ¶ 4 Acc ording to a repor t from t h e C h i l d re n ’s Home and Aid ag ency (the child welfa re ag ency working with DCFS), responde nt-mother was “close ” to h aving Addison returne d home when she was arr ested on Marc h 1, 2010, following a police chase throug h three counties. During the chase
, responde nt-mother backe d her v ehicle into a police detec tive. Respondent -m o t h er pleade d guilty and was convicted of ag g ravated battery to a police

T ongela ’s name is spe ll ed dif fe re ntl y thr oughout the re cor d. We ado pt the spe ll ing tha t she 1
pro vided t o the c our t a t t he p er m ane ncy re view he ar ing on No vem ber29, 2011

.
-2-office r, a C l as s 1 felony
, in De Kalb County (No. 10-CF-167), and was sentenced to eig ht

y ear s’ impris o n m en t

. Respondent-mother was also convicted, following guilty pleas, of
ag g ravated flee ing, a Class 4 felony
, in both Winnebag o County (No. 10-CF- 693) and Kane County (No. 10-CF- 568). She was sentenc ed to one y ear and two y ea rs ’ i m prisonment,
respe ctively , to be serve d concur rently with the De Ka lb County sentenc e. ¶ 5 On May 14, 2010, the State filed a three -count petition in the circ uit court of Winnebag o County
, alleg ing that Addison was a neg lected minor under the J uvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 I L CS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2010)). Count I alleg ed that Addison

was neg lected based on an environment injurious to her welfa re in that her pare nts eng ag ed in domesti c v i o l en ce in her prese nce, thus placing her at risk of harm. Counts I I and I I I alleg ed neg lect based on an injurious environment in that responde nt- mo th e r a n d r e s p o n d entfathe r, respe ctively
, eac h had a substance abuse problem that preve n t ed p ro p er pare nting, thus placingAddison at risk of har m. ¶ 6 On J une 1, 2010, the t rial court conducte d a shelter car e h ea ri n g. T h e court entered a n order finding probable cause to believe that Addison was neg lected and g ranting temporar y guardia nship and custody

to DCFS. ¶ 7 On September 9, 2010, the trial court conducte d an adju d i ca t o ry h ea ri n g, at which responde nt-fathe r stipulated to the fac ts alleg ed in count I o f the petition. Respondent-mother
agree d to responde nt-fathe r’s stipulation. The court found that there was a fac tual basis supporting the plea. The court enter ed an order adjudicating Addison a neg lected minor and dismiss ing c ounts I Iand I I Ion the State’s motion. ¶ 8 Three perma

nency revie w hear ings followed. On Marc h 8, 2011, the trial court found tha t responde nt-mother had made reasona ble efforts t o follow the s er vice plan and achieve the
g oal of return home within 12 months. The court made no finding as to responde nt-mother’s
progress. The court maintained the g oal at return h o m e within 12 months. On August 30, 2011, the court ag ain found that responde nt-mother had made rea sonable eff orts. Howeve r, the court found that she had not ma de re asonable progress be cause of an alleg ed infrac tion of p ri s o n ru les in May 2011 when contra band (pills) was found in her cell. The court continued the g oal at return home within 12 months. On November 29, 2011, the court once

more found rea sonable eff orts but no rea sonable progress by responde nt-mother. The court chang ed the g oal to substitut e car e pending termination of pare ntal rig hts. The court also
g rante d DCFS leave to place Addison with T o n g e la in Geor g ia, which occur red on Dec ember 18, 2011. ¶ 9 On Fe bruar

y 17, 2012, the State filed a motion for termination of pare ntal rig hts, a lleg ing that responde nt-mother was unfit due to: count I
, failure to maintain a rea sonable degree of interest, conc er n , or responsibility as to Addison’s welfa re (750 I L CS 50/1(D)( b) (West 2010)); count I I
, depra

vity (750 I L CS 50/1(D)( i) (West 2010)); count I I I
, failure to make

rea sonable progress toward Addison’s return during the initial nine-month period following the adjudication of neg lect (750 I L CS 50/1(D)( m)(ii) (West 2010)); count IV, failure to make

rea sonable progress toward Addison’s return during any subsequent nine-month period (750 I L CS 50/1(D)( m)(iii) (West 2010)); and count V, repe ated incar cer ation preve nting her from discharg ing he r par ental re sponsibili ties (750 I L CS 50/ 1(D)( s) (West 2010)).

-3-¶ 10 Section 2-29 of the J uvenile Court Act (705 I L CS 405/2-29 (West 2010)) provides a twostep proce ss for termination of pare ntal rights. In re J.L.
, 236 I ll. 2d 329, 337 (2010). The trial court must first find by clea r and convincing evidenc e that the pare nt is unfit as define d in section 1 of t he Adoption Act (750 I L CS 50/ 1(D) ( West 2010)). 705 I L CS 405/ 2-29(2)
, (4) (West 2010); J.L.
, 236 I ll. 2d at 337. Then, the court must find by a preponde ranc e of the

ev i d en ce t h at termination of the pare nt’s rig hts is in the child’s best interests. 705 I L CS 405/2-29(2) ( West 2010); In re J ulian K. , 2012 I LApp (1st) 112841, ¶ 63. ¶ 11 On J une 8, 2012, the court conducte d an evidentiar y hear ing on the unfitness portion of the State’s motion to terminate pare ntal rig hts. At the outset of the hear ing, responde nt-fathe r consente d to Addison’s adoption by Tong ela. (Addison was still living with her in Geor g ia.) The S tate called t he two case worke rs i nvolved, who introduced the servi ce plans they had

cre ated for responde nt-mother and testified reg arding her eff orts and progress. The court admitted the State’s exhibi ts 4, 5, and 6, which wer e cer tified copies of responde nt-mother’s convictions from De Kalb County , Winnebag o County , and Ka ne County , respe ctively

. ¶ 12 Respondent-mother testified on her own behalf

. She said th a

t h e r felony convictions wer e all based on “ the same inc ident” on Marc h 1, 2010. Respondent-mother e x plained that the incident beg an when she inge sted $400 worth of coca ine with her ex-husband in Winnebag o County

. At some point afte r that, responde nt-mother was driving

. Although she coul d not

rec all why
, she knew that police in Winnebag o County tried to stop her and that she ref used
to do so. Respondent-mother drove into De Kalb County
, wher e she hit a residential trailer. A police detec tive attempted to preve nt responde nt-mother from leav i n g that scene

. Resp o n d en t -m other started her car and put it in reve rse. Respondent-mother continued flee ing into Ka

ne County , wher e she w as eve ntually stopped sometime duringrush hour. ¶ 13 W h en as k ed on cross-e x amination if she hit the detec tive, responde nt-mother re plied
, “Not exactly .” She acknow ledg ed that she was convicted of ag g ravated battery for hitting the detec tive with her car

. When asked what happene d to the detec tive, responde nt-mother said, “I guess she g ot injured. I don’t know.” Respondent-mother further testified that, at the time of the inci d en t , Ad d i s on was in temporar y place ment with DCFS. She testified that at the time she was not thinking that her c onduct could af fec t her a bility to pare nt Addison. ¶ 14 Respondent-mother testified that, since her impris o n ment in April 2010, she had bee n enrolled in substanc e abuse treatment known as the Wells prog ram. She ha d progresse d to the second of two levels prior to being discharg ed from the program as part of her discipline for the contra

band incident in May 2011. Respondent-mother explained that presc ription pills wer e found in her cell, which she share d with another inmate. She testified that the pills 2

wer e not hers but that both she and her cellmat e we re disciplined beca use neither would admit that the pills wer e hers. Respondent-mother had since ree nrolled in the Wells prog ram and had had no other infrac tions during her i m p ri s o n ment. Respondent-mother further testified t h at , b ased on her participation in the Wells program, her orig inal rele ase date of

Acco rdi ng to the DCFS per m ane ncy hea ri ng re por t fi le d wit h the cou rt on August 30, 2011
, 2 11 pil ls wer e fou nd. Resp onde nt-m oth er re por te d tha t the re wer e nin e ant ihi st amine pi ll s a nd t wo

m usc le

- re la xan t p il ls

.
-4-Marc h 1, 2014, had bee n moved up to J uly 2, 2013. ¶ 15 Respondent-mother said that her discipline for the contra band incident also included “no contact” visits for six months, meaning that she saw visitors throug h a g lass window and
t al ked to them on a telephone. Her visits with Addison previously had consisted of s i t t i n g with Addison at a table or joining her in a play are a. Respondent-mother agree d that she told her case worke r not to bring Addison to visit for those six months. She explained that she did
not think it would be good for three -year -old Addison to “sit on a phone and talk” for two hours and that Addison wa s too y oungto understand the c hang e in situation. ¶ 16 Respondent-mother n ex t t es t i fi ed ab o u t her compliance with her service plan. She expl ai n ed t h at the only mental health service s available at the prison wer e brief, monthly
psychiatric visits and prescr iption medication. Re spondent-mother was compliant with the visits and with her medication for bipolar disorder an d depre ssion. Respondent-mother

succe ssfully completed the pare n t ing class offere d. Reg arding domestic violence service s, responde nt-mother testified that she had repe atedly reque sted to be in the prison’s prog ram,

was on the waiting list, and expected to eng ag e in that service within a few wee ks. She was also schedule d t o take a stress manag ement class afte r the domestic violence prog ram. Respondent-mother took two ang er manag ement course s and classes known as “Road Map
to L ifelong Recove ry” and “L ifestyle Redirec tion.” Respondent-mother additionally completed c ourses off

ere d at the prison through L ake L and Colleg e, including a sanitation

course , for which she rec eived her sanitation license. She also finished a L ake L and College six -month restaur ant manag ement program in only f o u r mo nth s

. Respondent-mother thought she had taken adva

ntag e of e very

program off

ere d by the prison. ¶ 17 Resp ondent-mother further testified t hat s he was rese arc hing possible housing options for herse lf upon rele ase and had contac ted a halfwa y house as well as a friend. She explained that she had not been able to pursue employ ment opportunities due to her incar cer ation but planned to wor

k in the food ser

vice industry

and g o to colleg e to study culinary arts. ¶ 18 Respondent-mother testified that she had been unable to understand the ef fe ct s o f her behavior while she was under the in fl u ence but that she no longe r wanted to use drug s or alcohol. She under stood that her inca rce ration had “ torn [her] family apar t.” ¶ 19 T h e t rial court took the matter under advisement and rende red its ruling o n J u n e 2 9
, 2012. The court found that the State had proved counts I I
, I I I
, IV, and V (depr avity
, lack of

rea sonable progress in the initial nine-month period, lack of rea sonable progress in any ninemonth period, and repe ated incar cer ation, respe ctively ) by clea r and convincing evidenc e. The c ourt enter ed an or der f inding r espondent-mother unfit. ¶ 20 On October 4, 2012, the trial court conducte d the best-intere sts portion of the proc eeding

. On Octobe r 31, the c ourt enter ed an or der f inding that it wa s in Addison’s best interests to terminate responde nt-mother’s pare ntal rig hts and chang ing the g oal to adoption. On November 2, the court enter ed an order terminating responde nt-mother’s pare ntal rig hts and
g rantingDCFS the powe r to consent to adoption. Respondent- mother appe als.

-5-¶ 21 ANALYSI S

¶ 22 Respondent-mother argues that the trial court’s finding of u n fi t n es s wa s against the 3 manifes t we i gh t o f t he evidence (see Julian K.
, 2012 I L App (1st) 112841, ¶ 65). We will

reve rse the trial court’s finding of unfitness only if it was ag ainst the manifest weight of the

ev idence

. In re J’Am erica B.
, 346 I ll. App. 3d 1034, 1045 (2004). A deter m i n at i o n o f unfitness is ag ainst the m an ifest weight of the evidenc e only if the opposite conclusion is clea rly evident or the deter

mination is unrea sonable, arbitra ry , or not based on the evidenc e prese nted. J’Am erica B. , 346 I ll. App. 3d at 1045. ¶ 23 Respondent first contends that the trial court’s unfitness finding based on depra vity was ag ainst the manifest weight of the evid en ce

. S ection 1(D) of the Adoption Act provides

sever al grounds for unfitness, including a pare nt’s depra vity (750 I L CS 50/1(D)( i) (West 2010)). Although the leg islature did not include a definition of depra vity
, our supreme court has define d depra

vity as “an inh er ent defic iency of moral sense and rec titude.” (Interna l quotation marks omitted.) Stalder v. Stone
, 412 I ll. 488, 498 (1952); In re A.M.
, 358 I ll. App. 3d 247, 253 (2005). Our legi s l at u re cre ated “a rebuttable presumption that a pare nt is depra ved if the pa

rent has been criminally convicted of at lea st 3 felonies ***; and at least one of the se convic tions took pl ace within 5 y ear s” of the filing of the motion to terminate
pare ntal rig hts. 750 I L CS 50/1(D)( i) (West 2010). Her e, the trial court admi tt e d into evidenc e

cer tified copies of responde nt’s three felony convictions, all of which wer e within five y ear s of the State’s motion to terminate. Thus, there was a rebuttable presumption of responde nt’s depra vity

. A.M.
, 358 I ll. App. 3d at 253 (stati n g t h at t he State’s evidenc e, including three

cer tified copies of felony convictions, cre ated a rebuttable presumption of the responde nt’s depra vity). ¶ 24 “B eca

use the presumption is rebuttable
, a pare nt is still able to prese nt evidenc e showing that, despite her convictions, she is not depra ved.” In re Shanna W

. , 343 I ll. App. 3d 1155, 1 1 6 6 ( 2 0 0 3 )

. O n c e th e pare nt produce s evidenc e opposing the presumption, “th e p r e s u mp ti o n

cea ses t o operate, and the i ssue i s determ i n ed on the basis of t he evidence adduce d at t rial as if no pre sumption had ever e x isted.” In re J .A. , 316 I ll. App. 3d 553, 562 (2000). ¶ 25 Her e, to rebut the presumption of depra vity
, responde nt testified on her own behalf

. She explained that her convictions wer e the result of her conduct over the course of one day while she was impaired by coca ine and by her mental health issues. Respondent testified about her participation in the Wells program and said that she no longe r wanted to use drug s or alcohol. She was compliant with medication and psychiatric visits. Respondent noted that she had no inf ra ctions of prison rules other than the contra band incident. She testified that she had pursued ev er y p rogram offe red by the prison, including colleg e course s to enhanc e her employ ment opportunities. Responde nt h a d a ls o rese arc hed her prospec tive housing options. ¶ 26 Given that responde nt produce d evidenc e to rebut the presumption of depra vity
, the trial
court was to decide the is s u e b ased on all of the evidenc e adduce d, as if the presumption

never arose

. J.A.
, 316 I ll. App. 3d at 562. In our revie w, we are mindful of the defe renc e we

Fro m thi s poi nt, we wil l re fe r to re spo nde nt-m oth er as re spo nde nt, si nce re spo nde nt-fath er 3 is not a p ar ty to thi s appe al

.
-6-are to g ive to the trial court’s finding of depra vity in light of its ability to “close ly scrutinize [respondent’s] char acte r and cre dibilit y .” J.A.
, 316 I ll. App. 3d at 563. On the rec ord befor e us, we conclude that the trial court’s finding of unfitness based on depra vity was not ag ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e beca use a conclusion that responde nt was not depra ved

or had been reha

bilitated was not clea

rly evident. See J’Am erica B.
, 346 I ll. App. 3d at 1045 (n o t i n g that a decision is ag ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e only if the opposite conclusion is clea

rly evident or the deter

mination is unrea sonable, arbitra ry , or not based on the evidenc e pre sented). ¶ 27 The e vidence demonstrated that responde nt’s conduct resulting in her c onvictions was extremely serious and indicative of an i n h er en t defic iency of moral sense and rec titude. Respondent bega

n the day on Marc h 1, 2010, by i n ges t i n g a larg e amount of cocaine. She
proce eded to drive and ref used to stop for police in Winnebag o County

. Respondent agree d during her testimony that she chose not to s t o p. She then led police on a car chase into De Kalb County
, wher e she hit a residential trailer. Wit hout deter mining whether anyone was injured, responde nt continued flee ing by backing her vehicle into a police detec tive. Acc ording to the complaint in the De Kalb County case , the detec tive suffe red g reat bodily harm to her rig ht shoulder and left knee, “including but not limit ed to internal defor mation.” We note that
, even on the “cold” rec ord befor e us, responde nt seeme d almost nonchala nt about h er conduct, testifying that she did “[n] ot exactly” hit the detec tive and that she “guess[ed]” that the detec tive wa s i n j ured but she did not know. Even afte r hitting the detec tive, responde nt continued to flee police by driving into Kane County
, wher e eventua lly she was stopped. Respondent also acknow ledg ed during her testimony that her conduct

occur red while Addison was alre ady in temporar y place ment. Respondent’s conduct evince s not only a total disre g ard for Addison’s welfa re, but also a complete lack of respe ct for the welfa re of other pe rsons in her path. ¶ 28 In addition to responde nt’s Marc h 1, 2010, conduct, the rec ord contains other e vidence of her depra

vity

. Reports filed with the court by both D CFS and Children’s Home and Aid ref lect responde nt’s history of involving herse lf in relationships m ar k ed b y domestic violence. Despite an order of protec tion ag ainst responde nt-fathe r, responde nt returned to live with him, even though Addison was a protec ted person under the order

. The repor ts also

reve al responde nt’s repe ated use of coca ine and her positive drug drops, even while she was participating in safe ty plans to achie ve Addison’s return home. Fur ther, the repor

ts indicate that responde nt had three older children (born in 1 9 9 8
, 2 0 0 3
, and 2004), who, though not involved wi th DCFS, wer e voluntarily place d with various family members. Whether this fac t evince s responde nt’s unwillingness to car e for her children or her rec o gn i t i o n of her inability to do so beca

use of the choice s she made, it is further evidenc e o f an i n h er en t defic iency of moral sense and rec titude. On this rec ord, responde nt’s Marc h 1, 2010, conduct was the c ulmination of a history of depr avity

. ¶ 29 Fur

thermore
, the prison’ s f

in din g that responde nt had contra band in her cell also supports the trial court’s finding of depra vity

. Respondent argues on appea l that, beca use the prison’s

-7-finding was based on only “some evidenc e,” she was not aff orded due proce ss. There fore
, 4

acc ording to responde nt, the i nfra ction cannot constitut e cle ar and convincing evidenc e of unfitness. Whil e we agree that the contra band incid ent itself was not proven by clea r and convincing evidenc e, t he incident was, never theless, part of the State’s evidenc e of responde nt’s depra

vity that the trial cour

t could proper ly

consider. 5 ¶ 30 Notwithstanding responde nt’s argument to the contra ry , her ef fo rt s i n p ri son, while commendable
, we re insufficient evidenc e of reha bilitation or lack of depra vity

. See A.M.
, 358 I ll. App. 3 d at 254 (stating that “completion of classes in prison, while ***

com m en dable, does not show reha bilitation”); Shanna W

. , 343 I ll. App. 3d at 1167 (“Rec eiving a few cer

tificates for completing basic service s in prison, while commendable
, is not a difficult task and does not show reha bilitation.”). Nor can we conclude that, even assuming that responde nt was not responsible fo r t h e contraband found in her cell, responde nt’s g ood behavior while imprisoned was particula rly probative, g iven that she was in a controlled environment. See Shanna W

. , 3 4 3 I l l. App. 3d at 1167 (re asoning that reha bilitation “ca

n only be shown by a pare nt who leave s prison and m ai ntains a lifestyle suitable for pare ntin g children safe ly”); In re Adoption of Kleba
, 37 I ll. App. 3d 163, 166 (1976) (re jecting as evidenc e of the fathe r’s reha bilitation that he had not g otten into trouble while in prison, n o t i n g t hat his “opportunity to commit further criminal acts ha[d] been

sever ely restric ted” since his imprisonm ent). ¶ 31 Respondent urg es that her convictions are not indicative of depra vity beca use they wer e the result of her addiction and mental health issues. Respondent offe rs no authority in support of this proposition but m ai n t ai n s t h at no I llinois case has held that addiction constitutes depra vity

. Yet, in Shanna W

. , the court aff

irmed the t ri al co u rt ’s finding of depra vity and reje cted the responde nt’s argument that her drug -re lated convictions did not demonstrate an in h er en t defic iency of moral sense and rec titude. Shanna W

. , 343 I ll. App. 3d at 1167. Al t h o u gh unlike responde nt the responde nt in Shanna W

. took coca ine while pregnant ( Shanna W

. , 343 I ll. App. 3d at 1167), the trial court here could have found that responde nt simil arly inflicted her drug problem on Addi s o n , in light of the chaos it eng ender ed in Addison’s life. In any event, beca use responde nt’s argument is unsupported by authority
, it is forf eited. Alvarez v. Pappas
, 374 I ll. App. 3d 39, 44 (2007) (an arg ument raised on appea l but not supported by citation to rele vant authority is forf eited under I llinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (ef

f. Jul y 1, 2008)). ¶ 32 Respondent furthe r ar gues that, bec ause she had no serious criminal history and all of 6

Resp onde nt ra is es thi s arg um ent in con nec ti on wit h the cou rt ’s fi ndi ng of la ck of re aso nab le 4
pro gress

.

We al so not e tha t the fi tne ss hea ri ng was not the fi rs t ti m e tha t the cou rt (J udge Gre en) had

5 hea rd a b o u t t h e con tr aba nd inc ide nt. T he inc ide nt was the bas is for the cou rt ’s fi ndi ng of no

re aso nab le pr ogress by res pond ent atth e s eco nd p er m ane ncy re view he ar ing on Au gust 3 0, 20 11.

Sta te ’s exh ibi t 4 inc lud es the De K al b Count y Sta te ’s Att orn ey’s st at ement of fa ct s, whic h 6 ind ic at es tha t re spo nde nt had onl y two pri or m is demeanor con victi ons , of the ft an d o bst ruc ti ng

-8-the conduct g iving rise to her felony convictions occur red on one day
, her alleg ed acts of depra vity wer e of insufficient duration an d lacke d the repe tition nece ssary to support a depra vity finding

. In support of her position, responde nt relies on In re M.B.C.
, 125 I ll. App. 3d 512, 514 (1984), wher ein the court stated, “Ac ts constituting depra vity must be of sufficie nt duration and repe tition to establish moral defic iency an d either an inability or unwillingness to confor

m to acc epted morality .” The court in M.B.C. a pplied this proposition of law to reje ct the fathe r’s argument that evidenc e of his criminal convictions some 20 y ear s

ear lier was irrele vant, concluding that those convictions, taken with th e o n e at issue, “re veal[ed] a pattern of criminality .” M.B.C.
, 125 I ll. App. 3d at 514. Significa n t l y , when M.B.C. was decide d, section 1(D)( i) of the Adoption Act did not y et provide for the curr ent rebuttable presumption of depr avity based on three felony convictions. See In re T.T.
, 322 I ll. App. 3d 462, 463 (2001) (noting that an amendment (Pub. Act 90-608, § 40 (ef f. J une 30, 1998)) added this provision). Moreove r, the Adoption Ac t provides no exception for case s in which the conduct giving rise to the three felony convictions occur red on the s ame day

. In amending section 1(D)( i), the leg islatur e ap p roved the use of three felony convictions alone to cr eate a prima faciecase of depr avity

. T.T. , 322 I ll. App. 3d at 466. ¶ 33 Additionally
, our rese arc h reve als that the “boilerplate” languag e requiring the depr aved
acts to be “of sufficie nt duration and of sufficie nt re p et i t ion” was first rec ited in Y oung v. Pr a t h er , 1 2 0 I ll. App. 2d 395, 397 (1970)–a case that also predated the amendment. In announcing this require ment, the court in Y oung relied on Stalder

. Howeve r, t h e co u rt in Stalder simply noted t hat having one child out of wedlock did not constitute depravity but that having a series of aff

airs with differ ent men could. Stalder
, 412 I ll. at 498. It did not hold that all depra

ved acts must be of sufficie nt duration an d repe tition. Thus, even prea mendment, the applicability of t he boil erpla te l anguag e was not nece ssarily universal. In light of the amendment, unless the leg islature sees fit to cre at e an exception, the applicability of t he sufficient-duration-and-r epetition requi reme nt to case s involving three felony convictions is eliminated. ¶ 34 Fi n al ly
, we note that, even prea mendment, our supreme court held that on e m u rd er conviction was sufficie nt to uphold the trial court’s finding of depra vity based on the nature 7 of the single act. In re A b d u l l a h
, 8 5 I ll. 2d 300, 307-08 (1981) (whe re the victim was the child’s mother, and the extended-term sentenc e indicated that the fathe r’s behavior had been exceptionally brutal and heinous). Her e, even assuming arguendo that responde nt’s conduct

on Marc h 1, 2010, constituted a single act, it st i l l s upported the trial court’s finding of unfitness based on de pravity

. As discussed above , the ver y nature of re spondent’s conduc t evince d a complete disreg ard not only of the eff ect it would have on Addison but also of the human life jeopa

rdized.

j ust ic e.

Sec ti on 1(D) (i ) curre ntl y pro vides for a pre sumpti on of dep ra vity, re but table onl y by cl ear

7 and con vinci ng eviden ce, when the par ent has bee n con victe d of fi rs t- degree m urd er , sec ond-deg re e

m urd er of the oth er par ent of the chi ld at is sue , or fi rs t- or sec ond-deg re e m urd er of any chi ld. 750 I LCS 50/ 1(D) (i ) ( We st201 0).

-9-¶ 35 Be cause we affirm the tria l court’s finding of unfitness on the ground of depra vity
, we need not addre ss responde nt’s contentions reg arding the other bases of unfitness. Julian K.
, 8 2012 I L App (1st) 112841, ¶ 2 (stating that a single g round of unfitness under section 1(D) is sufficie nt to support a finding of unfitness). Moreove r, as responde nt does not contest the trial court’s best-intere st s fi n d ing, we conclude that the court’s order terminating 9 responde nt’s pare ntal rights was appropr iate. In r e R i ch ard H.
, 376 I ll. App. 3d 162, 166 (2007). ¶ 36 Ba sed on the fore g oing, we aff irm the j u d gm en t o f t h e ci rcuit court of Winnebag o County

.

¶ 37 Affir

med.

We not e, however
, tha t the Sta te con fe sse d error in the tr ia l cou rt ’s fi ndi ng tha t re spo nde nt 8

was unf it due to re pea te d i nca rc er at ion . See 750 I LCS 50/ 1(D) (s ) ( We st201 0).

I n her re ply bri ef

, re spo nde nt ass er ts tha t she int ent ion al ly ra is ed no ar gum ent abo ut the tr ia l 9

cou rt ’s bes t- int er est s fi ndi ng and re que st s tha t we ign ore the Sta te ’s con te nti on tha t re spo nde nt for fe it ed a ny suchar gum ent . W e a gree t hat th e St at e’ s c ont ent ion was unn ece ssa ry.

-10-