2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U 

No. 2-23-0217 

Order filed December 28, 2023

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent 

except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

In re L.B., a Minor ) Appeal from the Circuit Court 

) of Kane County.

) 

) No. 20-JA-153 

) 

) Honorable 

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner- ) Kathryn D. Karayannis, 

Appellee, v. Jenna E., Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Birkett and Mullen concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: We grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s 

judgment terminating respondent’s parental rights, concluding that there exist no 

issues of arguable merit to be raised on appeal.

¶ 2 Respondent, Jenna E., appeals from the trial court’s order finding her unfit to parent her 

child, L.B. (born January 5, 2015), and terminating her parental rights.1

 Her appellate counsel has 

moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has read the 

1

The parental rights of L.B.’s father, William Gregory B., are not at issue in this appeal, as 

he is deceased.
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U 

- 2 - 

record and concluded there exist no issues of arguable merit to be raised on appeal. See In re S.M., 

314 Ill. App. 3d 682, 685 (2000) (holding Anders applies to cases involving termination of parental 

rights). Counsel has supported his motion with a memorandum of law providing a statement of 

facts, potential issues, and argument as to why those issues lack arguable merit. See In re Alexa 

J., 345 Ill. App. 3d 985, 988 (2003) (further holding that “counsel must identify at least one 

potentially justiciable issue in a motion to withdraw under Anders.”). Counsel served respondent 

with a copy of the motion and memorandum. We advised respondent that she had 30 days to 

respond to counsel’s motion. That time has passed, and no response was filed. We conclude that 

this appeal lacks arguable merit based on the reasons set forth in counsel’s memorandum. 

Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 3 We note that this appeal was accelerated under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a) (eff. 

July 1, 2018). Pursuant to that rule, the appellate court must, except for good cause shown, issue 

its decision in an accelerated case within 150 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. Ill. S. Ct. 

R. 311(a)(5) (eff. July 1, 2018). Here, respondent filed her notice of appeal on June 28, 2023. 

Respondent’s first counsel filed his motion to withdraw on August 24, 2023, and respondent was 

given 30 days to respond; no response was filed. On October 18, 2023, this court struck counsel’s 

motion, as counsel had not complied with the procedure laid out in Alexa J., and we discharged 

counsel and remanded the case for the limited purpose of appointment of other counsel. On 

October 20, 2018, we denied discharged counsel’s motion to reconsider. The trial court appointed 

new counsel, and, on November 22, 2023, counsel moved to withdraw under Anders. Due to these 

circumstances, we find good cause for this decision to be issued after the timeframe mandated by 

Rule 311(a).

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U 

- 3 - 

¶ 5 On October 5, 2020, the State petitioned for a finding that L.B. was a neglected minor due 

to his environment being injurious to his welfare, in that respondent’s mental health issues placed 

him at risk of harm. Respondent has bipolar type 1 disorder and schizoaffective disorder. The 

Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) responded to a call on August 22, 2020, 

concerning L.B.’s well-being after respondent was allegedly being aggressive toward her father in 

the child’s presence and being verbally aggressive toward L.B. Respondent had been in a manic 

state for several months, refusing to take her medication for bipolar disorder. She was hospitalized 

for 10 days in September 2020 and signed herself out against her caregivers’ recommendations

(allegedly based on insurance issues) on September 23, 2020. After release, she allegedly made 

suicidal statements and threatened L.B. with physical harm. DCFS implemented an in-home safety 

plan with the maternal grandparents, with whom respondent and L.B. resided. On October 2, 2020, 

respondent became combative and refused to sign the safety plan. DCFS took protective custody 

of L.B. on that date, and he was placed in his paternal grandparents’ home. DCFS was granted 

temporary custody of L.B. on October 6, 2020.

¶ 6 Tiffany Fabian, a DCFS investigator, testified that respondent had been physically and 

verbally aggressive with her father in L.B.’s presence, called L.B. names (“dumb shit” and “piece 

of garbage”), and had threatened to put him in the ground. She also claimed that she was not 

bipolar or mentally ill and had ADHD. A psychiatrist at the hospital indicated that respondent was 

delusional and paranoid. After DCFS took protective custody of L.B., respondent sent Fabian 75 

text messages. The trial court found that there was probable cause for the petition to proceed, 

granted DCFS temporary custody of L.B., and appointed CASA as guardian ad litem. 

¶ 7 The adjudicatory hearing was held on April 8, 2021. Fabian testified as to how L.B. came 

into care and related that a psychiatrist at Hartgrove Hospital had advised that L.B. should not 
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U 

- 4 - 

remain in respondent’s care if she failed to maintain her medication regime. During the course of 

Fabian’s investigation, she learned that respondent was not medication compliant. She spoke to 

respondent on October 2, 2020, at the grandparents’ home in Carpentersville, and respondent 

appeared very disheveled and was paranoid, refused to sign the safety plan (she initially signed the 

plan but she was required to sign again every five days), and stated she was moving and taking 

L.B. with her. She was also verbally mean toward L.B. and, when he asked for a hug, she told 

him to stay six feet away from her due to COVID-19. DCFS took protective custody of L.B.

¶ 8 Fabian also testified about the text messages respondent sent her. She related that 

respondent was aggressive and attacked Fabian in the messages. She also stated she did not have 

bipolar disorder and that L.B. had issues that she was trying to fix. Respondent also accused L.B. 

of being verbally and physically aggressive toward her and calling her vulgar names. She also 

stated that L.B. was not her child.

¶ 9 Respondent testified that she appeared disheveled the day Fabian visited because she was 

getting ready for the gym. She stated that she had taken L.B. to the police station because he was 

verbally aggressive with her and had punched her in the face. Respondent also claimed that Fabian 

took L.B. and drove off without him being fastened in a car seat. Respondent denied being verbally 

abusive toward L.B.

¶ 10 The trial court found that L.B. was a neglected minor. At the May 7, 2021, dispositional 

hearing, the court noted it had reviewed DCFS’s family service plan (dated April 20, 2021), and 

the integrated assessment (dated February 8, 2021), and a CASA report. The court found that L.B. 

should be made a ward of the court. It determined that respondent was not fit or able to care for 

her son and needed to complete services, including: a mental health assessment and recommended 
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U 

- 5 - 

treatments (random drug tests, substance abuse evaluation, parenting education, participation in 

visitation, and medication compliance). The court set the goal to return home within 12 months.

¶ 11 Permanency review hearings on October 4, 2021, and April 4, 2022, reflected that 

respondent had been participating in services and making progress; however, the court was 

awaiting written reports and a neuropsychological evaluation.

¶ 12 At an October 3, 2022, permanency review hearing, the trial court acknowledged that 

respondent had made reasonable efforts and progress but that the parenting capacity assessment 

was required to be completed and that she needed to show she was substance free for six months 

prior in order for the assessment to be conducted. Respondent had three months of clean drug 

tests. A June 10, 2022, missed drug test was considered positive. She had clean tests in July and 

August 2022. The court found that respondent was attending psychiatrist appointments and 

individual therapy and that she was medication compliant. She had been consistently visiting L.B. 

Respondent had also completed a substance abuse evaluation, and no recommendations were made 

for further treatment; however, the court wanted to see the evaluation. 

¶ 13 At an April 21, 2023, permanency review hearing, Kiya Murphy, a Lutheran Child and 

Family Services LCFS) caseworker, noted that respondent had engaged in inappropriate name 

calling of her and, during the prior week, had posted her personal information on social media. 

Murphy had also recently learned that respondent was not seeing her psychiatrist because the 

doctor no longer accepted Medicaid. The parenting capacity assessment had been scheduled for 

mid-May. Murphy also reported that respondent had not resumed services and had stopped 

participating in individual therapy at 7 Hills Behavioral Center. She was also not medication 

compliant. The trial court found that the appropriate goal was substitute care pending 

determination of a petition to terminate parental rights. L.B., the court noted, had been in care for 
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U 

- 6 - 

21⁄2 years, was well cared for at his paternal grandparents’ house, and deserved to have 

permanency. Reports indicated that L.B. reported that, during visitations, respondent did not 

interact with him much. Respondent’s lack of participation in individual therapy was not

dependent on finances. As of the last court date, the court noted, respondent had been on “texting 

binges,” texting the caseworker (and not always about the case). The trial court also noted that 

respondent had not been attending visitations since the beginning of April, because they had been 

suspended due to the significant mental health concerns reported by her psychiatrist. The court 

also found that the delay in the parenting capacity assessment was partially based on respondent’s 

use of THC. It further noted that inpatient care had been recommended. The court found that 

respondent had made efforts but not made reasonable or substantial progress to the return home of 

L.B.

¶ 14 On May 8, 2023, the State petitioned to terminate respondent’s parental rights, alleging 

that respondent was unfit in that she had failed to: (1) maintain a reasonable degree of interest, 

concern, or responsibility as to L.B.’s welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2022)); (2) protect L.B. 

from conditions within his environment injurious to his welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(g) (West 

2022)); (3) make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal 

of L.B. from her during the nine-month period between April 9, 2021, and January 9, 2022, after 

an adjudication of neglected, abused, or dependent minor (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2022)); 

(4) make reasonable progress toward the return of L.B. to her during the nine-month period from 

April 9, 2021, through January 9, 2022, after an adjudication of neglected, abused, or dependent 

minor (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022)); (5) make reasonable efforts to correct the 

conditions which were the basis for the removal of L.B. from her during the nine-month period 

between January 10, 2022, and October 10, 2022, after an adjudication of neglected, abused, or 
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U 

- 7 - 

dependent minor (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2022)); and (6) make reasonable progress toward 

the return of L.B. to her during the nine-month period from January 10, 2022, through October 10, 

2022, after an adjudication of neglected, abused, or dependent minor (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) 

(West 2022)). The State also argued that it was in L.B.’s best interests that respondent’s parental 

rights be permanently terminated and that DCFS remain legal guardian with power to consent to 

his adoption.

¶ 15 A. Fitness Hearing

¶ 16 On June 15, 2023, a hearing was held on the State’s petition. Veronica Michalski, a 

caseworker at LCFS who was assigned to L.B.’s case between October 2020 and December 2022, 

testified that L.B. came into care because respondent was aggressive toward her father and 

sometimes verbally abusive toward L.B. She had made threats against L.B. that she was going to 

bury him. After an integrated assessment, it was recommended that respondent undergo a 

psychiatric assessment, medication assessment (and be medication compliant), counseling, a 

parenting class, substance abuse assessment, and periodic drug tests. Michalski testified that, 

during the latter part of her tenure, respondent was seeing a psychiatrist and taking her prescribed 

medications. Respondent also consistently saw her therapist at 7 Hills, but progress was 

“extremely slow and difficult,” because respondent did not understand why she was required to be 

in counseling. Also, respondent never moved to unsupervised visits, nor did she undergo a 

recommended parenting capacity assessment. DCFS required that respondent be drug-free (other 

than prescribed medications) for at least six months. Respondent submitted to random drug tests, 

and, initially, for several months, she tested positive for THC in January, March, and April 2022

(which delayed the parenting capacity assessment). She also tested positive for cocaine in March 

2022. Toward the end of Michalski’s tenure, however, respondent was testing negative. 
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U 

- 8 - 

Respondent completed a substance abuse assessment and did not qualify for services. She was 

referred for a parenting class and successfully completed it.

¶ 17 Addressing visitations, Michalski testified that the visits were weekly, initially on Zoom. 

In March 2022, due to a job change, visits were supervised by respondent’s parents on weekends. 

Respondent’s conduct during the visits was initially very good, but she did not speak much to L.B. 

L.B. initiated conversations. Once the visits moved to in-person, they occurred in parks or the 

library. Respondent became less “stiff” and she brought craft projects, toys, etc. She regularly 

communicated with Michalski, but did not inquire about L.B. During the time Michalski was 

respondent’s caseworker, respondent lived with her parents and had about six or eight jobs, as she 

frequently switched employment. When Michalski retired, respondent had not been discharged 

from her therapy.

¶ 18 While respondent was in therapy, according to Michalski, she did not understand why she 

was required to be in counseling and her insight was limited. However, she consistently attended.

¶ 19 Kiya Murphy, a child welfare specialist at LCFS, succeeded Michalski as the caseworker

in December 2022. At that time, respondent’s visits were being supervised by her parents. For 

various reasons, Murphy never supervised them. Respondent was seeing a psychiatrist and a 

therapist. Murphy sent respondent for random drug tests, and respondent missed four tests. She 

did not have any positive tests during Murphy’s tenure. A parenting capacity assessment was 

scheduled for May 1, 2023, but respondent left before the interviews started, thus, the assessment 

was never completed.

¶ 20 During Murphy’s tenure, respondent consistently visited L.B., but, in April 2023, her visits 

were suspended because the agency received reports from L.B. about respondent not interacting 

with him and arguing with her parents during visitations. Also, the agency received information 
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U 

- 9 - 

from respondent’s psychiatrist and therapist that they were very concerned for her well-being and 

that she was not attending appointments. Further, respondent was not medication compliant at this 

time. The psychiatrist recommended inpatient hospitalization.

¶ 21 Murphy also learned that respondent’s boyfriend attended visits with her. This was 

concerning because Murphy did not know anything about the boyfriend and the agency had not 

conducted a background check on him. Further, in April 2023, Murphy learned about two social 

media posts by respondent wherein she used Murphy’s full name and employer and called Murphy 

a “disrespectful snot.” Murphy also related that, beginning in January 2023, respondent began 

excessively texting her. She asked respondent to stop, but it continued. The texting was 

acknowledged at a February 2023 court date, but it got worse afterwards and included “random 

bizarre messages.” Respondent’s client service plan included a provision to refrain from excessive 

texting. 

¶ 22 Respondent was rated as unsatisfactory in her April 2023 client service plan, because she 

was not complying with services and her visits had been suspended. During Murphy’s tenure, 

respondent never successfully met her treatment goals. Nor was she successfully discharged from 

therapy. 

¶ 23 In May 2023, Murphy received multiple text messages from respondent. One text included 

a YouTube video of a song with lyrics that were concerning; one about being taken away in a 

hearse and another about being cut up. Following the text, the foster mother (i.e., paternal 

grandmother) obtained an order of protection for her, her husband, and L.B. against respondent.

¶ 24 On cross-examination, Murphy testified that, when she took over the case, respondent was 

participating in services at 7 Hills, visitations, and was medication compliant.
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U 

- 10 - 

¶ 25 Jennifer B., L.B.’s foster mother and his paternal grandmother, testified that respondent 

used to date her son. In March 2023, when L.B. returned home from his visits with respondent, 

he was upset on two occasions. On the first occasion, he cried and stated that respondent had left 

the visit early. The second time, he was upset and stated that his mother was not right and that 

respondent had argued with her parents. Jennifer also testified that, between December 2022 and 

May 2023, she received about 150 texts from respondent; only three or four texts asked about L.B. 

Jennifer did not respond because some of the messages were “off.” She reached out to the 

caseworker and respondent’s parents.

¶ 26 The trial court found that the State had proven the allegations in each of the counts of its 

petition, excluding the third and fifth counts relating to reasonable efforts. It found the witnesses 

credible and determined that respondent did not comply with recommendations to stay hospitalized 

and medication compliant. Addressing visitations, the court found that respondent left visits early 

and did not inquire about L.B. The court also determined that respondent had tested positive for 

THC and cocaine despite being informed that she could not use those substances while on other 

medication and while completing services. She also failed to participate in the parenting capacity 

assessment. The court determined that the unrebutted testimony established that respondent made 

“very slow” progress at times. Evidence relating to her individual therapy showed that she did not 

understand why DCFS was involved or how her behavior affected this case. The court also noted 

that respondent’s visitations never moved to being unsupervised over the 21⁄2-year pendency of the 

case. It also noted her excessive texting. Also, during visits with her parents, she argued, left 

early, and upset L.B. She also texted about a song lyric relating to a hearse and cutting someone 

up. Respondent had also been recommended for inpatient treatment but had not attended and had 

stopped seeing her psychiatrist and individual therapist.
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U 

- 11 - 

¶ 27 B. Best Interests Hearing 

¶ 28 At the best interests hearing, Murphy testified that L.B. has been placed with his paternal 

grandparents since October 2020. She visits twice per month, and the home is nice and large, and 

L.B. has many toys. He appears to have a strong bond with his grandparents and does well in 

school. His grandparents take him to activities, such as movies, camping in the backyard, or 

picnics. He also interacts with extended family.

¶ 29 The home is pre-adoptive. The grandparents have been supportive of individual therapy, 

and they are currently meeting all of L.B.’s needs. Murphy opined that L.B. deserves a permanent 

home with grandparents. They are willing to permit safe and appropriate contact with respondent 

and her side of the family.

¶ 30 The trial court found that it was in L.B.’s best interests that respondent’s parental rights be 

terminated. The relevant factors all favored this, the court determined, and L.B. was being well 

cared for by his paternal grandparents, he loves them, and, per a therapist’s report, prefers 

remaining in their care.

¶ 31 Respondent appealed. The trial court appointed counsel to represent respondent on appeal. 

As noted, appellate counsel has moved to withdraw, in accordance with Anders. 

¶ 32 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 33 In his Anders motion, counsel argues that there may be an argument to be made that the 

State failed to establish that respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward the return home 

of L.B. during the nine-month period from April 9, 2021, through January 9, 2022, but that no 

such argument can be made for the remaining three grounds upon which the trial court found 

respondent unfit, evidence for which was overwhelming, or its best interests determination, and, 

thus, an appeal on this basis would be frivolous and without merit.
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U 

- 12 - 

¶ 34 The Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2022)) sets forth a two-stage 

process for the involuntary termination of parental rights. In re Keyon R., 2017 IL App (2d) 

160657, ¶ 16. Initially, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that 

the parent is unfit under any single ground set forth in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 

50/1(D) (West 2022)). 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2), (4) (West 2022); In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329, 337 

(2010). If the trial court finds the parent unfit, the State must then show by a preponderance of the 

evidence that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) 

(West 2022); In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 367 (2004). On appeal, this court will not disturb a trial 

court’s finding as to parental unfitness or a child’s best interests unless it is against the manifest 

weight of the evidence. In re N.B., 2019 IL App (2d) 180797, ¶¶ 30, 43. A decision is against the 

manifest weight of the evidence where the decision is unreasonable. Keyon R., 2017 IL App (2d) 

160657, ¶ 16. 

¶ 35 Furthermore, it is well settled that, “when parental rights are terminated based upon clear 

and convincing evidence of a single ground of unfitness, the reviewing court need not consider 

additional grounds for unfitness cited by the trial court.” In re Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d 883, 

891 (2004). Hence, if we affirm the trial court’s decision on one ground, we need not consider the 

court’s decision on the other grounds. After careful review, we agree that there would be no 

arguable merit to a challenge to the court’s finding of unfitness because, at a minimum, the court’s 

finding that respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward reunification during the ninemonth period January 10, 2022, through October 10, 2022, is not contrary to the manifest weight 

of the evidence.

¶ 36 The question of reasonable progress is an objective one, which requires the trial court to 

consider whether a parent’s actions during a given nine-month period would support the court’s 
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U 

- 13 - 

decision to return the child home soon. In re Phoenix F., 2016 IL App (2d) 150431, ¶ 7. The court 

will consider the parent’s compliance with the service plans and the court’s directives. In re C.N., 

196 Ill. 2d 181, 216-17 (2001). For there to be reasonable progress, there must be, at a minimum, 

some measurable or demonstrable movement toward the goal of reunification. In re J.O., 2021 IL 

App (3d) 210248, ¶ 57. 

¶ 37 We agree with counsel that the potential issue he identifies lacks arguable merit. Because 

any single ground properly proven may support an unfitness finding (Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d 

at 891), whether respondent made progress toward reunification in the nine-month period from 

April 9, 2021, to January 9, 2022, does not diminish or outweigh her failure to make reasonable 

progress during the period from January 10, 2022, through October 10, 2022.2

 The record amply 

supports the trial court’s determination that respondent failed to make reasonable progress during 

the latter period. She attended individual therapy during this period, but, as her therapist noted, 

she did not demonstrate an understanding of the risk factors that contributed to DCFS’s 

involvement. Similarly, Michalski testified that respondent’s progress with her psychiatric therapy 

was “extremely slow and difficult” because respondent did not understand why she was required 

to be in counseling. Also, four out of eight drug tests were considered positive, one of which 

(March 2022) was positive for cocaine and three of which (January, March, and April 2022) were 

positive for THC; also, respondent failed to appear for a June 2022 drug test. The positive tests 

delayed her ability to engage in the parenting capacity assessment, which was a required service 

2

Although the record reflects that respondent’s compliance with services deteriorated after 

this period, we do not address it because the State’s petition did not include allegations for the 

period after October 2022.
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U 

- 14 - 

toward the goal of reunification. Also, Michelski testified that, as of late 2022, respondent had not 

been successfully discharged from therapy. Although respondent was consistent with visitations, 

she never moved to unsupervised visits. A September 27, 2022, service plan noted that respondent 

listened to L.B., but that L.B. carried conversations and respondent did not respond much and 

merely repeated what L.B. stated. Also, when she communicated with Michalski, she did not 

inquire about L.B.

¶ 38 As to the best interests finding, the trial court found that L.B. has bonded with his 

grandparents (who meet his needs), does well in school, participates in activities, and interacts 

with his extended family.

¶ 39 Based on the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s fitness finding was against 

the manifest weight of the evidence. Thus, we agree with counsel that no viable argument 

challenging the court’s finding could be raised. We also agree that no viable argument can be 

raised concerning the court’s best interests determination.

¶ 40 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 41 After examining the record, the motion to withdraw, and the supporting memorandum of 

law, we agree with appellate counsel that respondent’s appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. 

Thus, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane 

County. 

¶ 42 Motion granted; affirmed.