2020 IL App (4th) 190570-U 

NO. 4-19-0570 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

In re A.B., a Minor, 

(The People of the State of Illinois, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v. 

Sarah W., 

Respondent-Appellant). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

)

Appeal from 

Circuit Court of 

Champaign County 

No. 17JA71 

Honorable 

John R. Kennedy, 

Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Turner and Harris concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, granting appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in the absence of 

meritorious issues to raise on appeal. 

¶ 2 In June 2019, the trial court found respondent mother, Sarah W., an unfit parent to 

her child, A.B. (born September 9, 2016). In July 2019, the court found termination of 

respondent’s parental rights would be in the minor’s best interest. Respondent father is not a 

party to this appeal. On appeal, respondent argues the trial court’s judgment terminating her 

parental rights was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 3 Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), respondent’s appellate 

attorney moves to withdraw as counsel. See In re S.M., 314 Ill. App. 3d 682, 685-86, 732 

N.E.2d 140, 143 (2000) (holding Anders applies to termination of parental rights cases and 

providing the proper procedure to be followed by appellate counsel). Counsel states he read the 

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme 

Court Rule 23 and may not be cited 

as precedent by any party except in 

the limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1). 

FILED

January 13, 2020

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL
- 2 - 

record in this case. According to counsel, after his review, he concluded this case presents no 

viable grounds for an appeal and any appeal would be “frivolous.” He supported his motion with 

a brief containing potential issues and argument as to why the issues lack merit. Counsel mailed 

respondent a copy of his motion and brief. After examining the record and executing our duties 

consistent with Anders, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial 

court’s judgment. 

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 A. Initial Proceedings 

¶ 6 The allegations of neglect—laid out in a shelter-care report—stemmed from a 

October 12, 2017, report to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) that 

respondent “was leaving the children alone at night and that the children were asking people in 

the neighborhood for food because there was none in the home. The home was reported to be 

dirty including garbage and cat feces. [Respondent] was also reportedly ‘snorting crushed 

pills.’ ” A DCFS investigation failed to find the allegations founded. However, respondent 

tested positive for “benzoids, opiates, methamphetamine, and marijuana.” The three older 

children were placed in substitute care after previously being taken into care in Champaign 

County case No. 17-JA-20. DCFS placed A.B. in the home of her paternal aunt, with whom 

respondent father lived. After a report to DCFS involving a domestic incident between 

respondent father and his girlfriend in A.B.’s presence, on December 21, 2017, DCFS placed 

A.B. in protective custody. 

¶ 7 On December 22, 2017, the State filed an amended petition for adjudication of 

neglect and shelter care against respondent. The petition alleged A.B.’s environment was 

injurious to her welfare pursuant to 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2016), where (1) respondent 
- 3 - 

exposed her to substance abuse, (2) respondent failed to correct the conditions which resulted in 

a prior adjudication of parental unfitness as to A.B.’s three siblings, and (3) respondent father 

exposed her to domestic violence. 

¶ 8 At the shelter care hearing on December 22, 2017, the trial court found probable 

cause to believe A.B. was neglected where “[respondent] was using illegal substances and DCFS 

began a safety plan placing [A.B.] with [respondent father]. [Respondent father] moved [A.B.] 

out of the home DCFS had approved after its occupants passed background checks, without 

notifying DCFS, moving her to a home whose occupants had significant criminal records, 

including arrests for drugs and weapons. He did not maintain contact with [DCFS] so its 

investigator could check [A.B.]’s welfare as often as the safety plan required, and then exposed 

[A.B.] to an incident of domestic violence between him and his girlfriend.” The court awarded 

DCFS temporary custody of A.B. 

¶ 9 At a February 27, 2018, adjudicatory hearing, respondent stipulated to the sheltercare report. The trial court took judicial notice of respondent’s prior DCFS case (Champaign 

County case No. 17-JA-20). Subsequently, the court entered an adjudicatory order finding A.B. 

neglected. In a March 29, 2018, dispositional order, the court (1) found respondent unfit, 

(2) made A.B. a ward of the court, and (3) granted DCFS guardianship and custody. 

¶ 10 B. Termination Proceedings 

¶ 11 In January 2019, the State filed a motion for termination of respondent’s parental 

rights. The State alleged respondent was an unfit parent because she failed (1) to make 

reasonable progress toward the return of A.B. during any nine-month period following the 

adjudication of neglect, specifically, April 1, 2018, to January 1, 2019 (750 ILCS 50/1 (D)(m)(ii) 
- 4 - 

(West 2016)), and (2) to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to 

A.B.’s welfare (750 ILCS 50/1 (D)(b) (West 2016)). 

¶ 12 1. Fitness Hearing 

¶ 13 On May 17, 2019, the trial court conducted a bifurcated hearing on the motion for 

termination of parental rights, first considering respondent’s fitness. Respondent failed to attend 

the fitness hearing but was represented by counsel. The parties presented the following relevant 

testimony. 

¶ 14 a. Rachel Kramer

¶ 15 Rachel Kramer, program director for Lutheran Social Services of Illinois (LSSI), 

testified she supervised the caseworkers on A.B.’s case and served as a caseworker on the case 

from the end of July to the middle of August 2018. In April 2018, LSSI referred respondent for 

substance abuse and individual therapy services. Kramer testified during her time as caseworker, 

she never received contact information for respondent and never contacted respondent. Kramer 

also testified respondent never completed any services, including never visiting A.B. 

¶ 16 b. Jaimee Roy

¶ 17 Jaimee Roy, a foster care caseworker with LSSI from February 2018 to May 

2018, testified she worked on A.B.’s case from April 3, 2018, until May 21, 2018. Roy 

contacted respondent on May 1, 2018, and scheduled a substance-abuse screen for respondent to 

be completed the next day, May 2, 2018. After completing the substance-abuse screen where 

LSSI asked respondent questions regarding her substance abuse, LSSI referred respondent to 

Prairie Center and told respondent to make an appointment. Roy testified respondent never 

provided results of a substance-abuse assessment. 
- 5 - 

¶ 18 Roy testified she spoke once more with respondent to confirm a visit with A.B. 

At that time, respondent had one hour of supervised visitation per week. Roy testified 

respondent attended one visit with A.B. during her time on the case. Roy never increased 

respondent’s visitation schedule because respondent spent time in jail and Roy frequently could 

not reach respondent. 

¶ 19 c. Meredith Brumfield

¶ 20 Meredith Brumfield, a child welfare specialist with LSSI, testified she worked on 

A.B.’s case from August 13, 2018, until May 10, 2019. Brumfield testified she had no contact 

information for respondent and performed diligent searches for respondent, but any paperwork 

mailed to potential addresses was returned undeliverable. On September 11, 2018, respondent 

called Brumfield and they scheduled a visit with respondent’s three older children for September 

18; respondent did not ask about A.B. At that time, respondent gave Brumfield a contact number 

of a friend where Brumfield could reach her. On September 13, respondent called Brumfield and 

asked to reschedule the visit with her older children to September 25. After the conversation on 

September 13, Brumfield had no contact with respondent until December because the phone 

number provided by respondent no longer worked. 

¶ 21 In December 2018, respondent called Brumfield and informed her she was living 

in Kankakee, Illinois. Respondent requested in-patient care but Kankakee did not have any inpatient care facilities. Respondent again provided Brumfield with a friend’s phone number to 

reach her. Respondent would not provide Brumfield with an address because she feared LSSI 

would call the police. Brumfield testified that was the last time she spoke with respondent. 

Brumfield tried calling respondent the next week but could not reach her. Brumfield later 

learned respondent moved to Springfield, Illinois. 
- 6 - 

¶ 22 Brumfield testified when she spoke with respondent in December, she encouraged 

her to reengage in services and that respondent expressed interest in doing so but never followed 

through. Brumfield also testified respondent expressed interest in seeing A.B. and in preserving 

her parental rights. Respondent never completed any services and never visited A.B. 

¶ 23 d. Trial Court’s Findings 

¶ 24 The trial court took judicial notice of Champaign County case No. 18-CF-496, 

where respondent committed the offense of aggravated battery on April 16, 2018, and the 

judgment entered February 13, 2019. 

¶ 25 Following the fitness hearing, the trial court found respondent unfit where she 

failed (1) to make reasonable progress toward the return of A.B. during any nine-month period 

following the adjudication of neglect, specifically, April 1, 2018, to January 1, 2019 (750 ILCS 

50/1 (D)(m)(ii) (West 2016)), and (2) to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or 

responsibility as to A.B.’s welfare. Specifically, the court stated, “essentially the evidence was 

overwhelmingly compelling that [respondent’s] not been involved with remedial services or to 

any significant extent in her daughter’s life through the time periods measured in this motion, 

and has essentially checked out, so to speak, in regard to having any involvement at all in trying 

to improve the situation and be restored to her ability as a parent.” On June 3, 2018, the court 

entered a written adjudicatory order. 

¶ 26 2. Best-Interest Hearing 

¶ 27 On July 12, 2019, the trial court held a separate best-interest hearing. Respondent 

failed to attend the best-interest hearing but was represented by counsel. The court considered 

the record and best-interest reports from LSSI and Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA). 

LSSI submitted a best-interest report which stated respondent’s current whereabouts were 
- 7 - 

unknown and she failed to maintain a stable residence. Respondent had not been in contact with 

LSSI for the past couple of months. Respondent also never provided employment information 

and as of December 2018, respondent had outstanding warrants. Further, respondent failed to 

engage in the recommended treatment for substance abuse and never followed through with 

parenting classes or individual counseling. Respondent last visited A.B. in April 2018. A.B. 

remained in traditional foster care and was doing extremely well. A.B.’s speech had improved, 

she appeared very comfortable in the home, and she had regular visits with her three older 

siblings. 

¶ 28 CASA’s best-interest report mirrored LSSI’s report. Both CASA and LSSI went 

through the best-interest factors and recommended terminating respondent’s parental rights. 

¶ 29 After hearing recommendations from counsel and considering the best-interest 

factors, the trial court found it was in A.B.’s best interest to terminate respondent’s parental 

rights. On July 17, 2019, the court entered a written order terminating respondent’s parental 

rights. 

¶ 30 This appeal followed. 

¶ 31 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 32 On appeal, appellate counsel argues this case presents no potentially meritorious 

issues for review. We agree, grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the trial 

court’s judgment. 

¶ 33 A. Fitness Finding 

¶ 34 For purposes of evaluating whether there exists arguable merit to claims that 

respondent could raise on appeal regarding her fitness, we must bear in mind that any one 

ground, properly proved, is sufficient to affirm. In re Janine M.A., 342 Ill. App. 3d 1041, 1049, 
- 8 - 

796 N.E.2d 1175, 1181-82 (2003). Further, a trial court’s unfitness finding will not be disturbed 

on review unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, meaning unless the opposite 

conclusion is clearly evident or the finding is not based on the evidence. See In re Gwynne P., 

215 Ill. 2d 340, 354, 830 N.E.2d 508, 516-17 (2005); Janine M.A., 342 Ill. App. 3d at 1049. As 

such, we agree there would be no arguable merit to a challenge to the court’s finding of unfitness 

because, at a minimum, the court’s finding respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward 

the return of A.B. during the nine-month period between April 1, 2018, and January 1, 2019, is 

not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 35 The question of reasonable progress is an objective one, which requires the trial 

court to consider whether respondent’s actions would support the court’s decision to return the 

child home in the near future. See In re Phoenix F., 2016 IL App (2d) 150431, ¶ 7, 51 N.E.3d 

1020. In order for there to be reasonable progress, there must be some “demonstrable movement 

toward the goal of reunification.” In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 211, 752 N.E.2d 1030, 1047 (2001). 

¶ 36 Here, the evidence reflected, and the trial court reasonably found, that at the end 

of the nine-month period, respondent was no closer to having A.B. returned to her care than at 

the start of the nine-month period. Respondent never completed any services and only visited 

A.B. once during the relevant nine-month period. While LSSI conducted a substance-abuse 

screen with respondent in May 2018, respondent never made an appointment with Prairie Center 

or provided results of a substance-abuse assessment. As the court stated, respondent “essentially 

checked out, so to speak, in regard to having any involvement at all in trying to improve the 

situation and be restored to her ability as a parent.” 

¶ 37 Multiple caseworkers testified having issues contacting respondent. The few 

times respondent contacted a caseworker, she provided friend’s phone numbers where she could 
- 9 - 

be reached. However, when the caseworkers tried to contact respondent using the numbers 

provided, they failed to reach her. Furthermore, respondent declined to provide Brumfield with 

her address because she feared LSSI would call the police. The caseworkers testified LSSI was 

not in contact with respondent for months and was unaware where she lived as she moved 

around a lot. While respondent expressed interest in seeing A.B. and in preserving her parental 

rights, she never took the steps to do so. 

¶ 38 In light of the foregoing, the trial court’s finding was not contrary to the manifest 

weight of the evidence. That is, the State met its burden of establishing that between April 1, 

2018, and January 1, 2019, respondent made no reasonable progress toward the possibility that 

the court in the near future would be able to order A.B. returned to respondent. See In re Jordan

V., 347 Ill. App. 3d 1057, 1068, 808 N.E.2d 596, 605 (2004). 

¶ 39 B. Best-Interest Finding 

¶ 40 Similarly, we conclude there is no arguable merit to a claim it was against the 

manifest weight of the evidence for the trial court to conclude that termination of parental rights 

is in A.B.’s best interests. See In re Janira T., 368 Ill. App. 3d 883, 894, 859 N.E.2d 1046, 

1055-56 (2006). A reviewing court will not disturb a trial court’s best-interest determination 

unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. S.M., 314 Ill. App. 3d at 687. In making 

a best-interest determination, the trial court must consider the factors set forth in section 1-

3(4.05) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2016)), including the child’s 

physical safety and welfare, including food and health; need for permanence, stability and 

continuity; sense of attachment, love, security, and familiarity; community ties; and the 

uniqueness of every child. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2016). 
- 10 - 

¶ 41 Here, the trial court considered best-interest reports of LSSI and CASA, both of 

which recommended termination of parental rights. Both reports asserted A.B. remained in 

traditional foster care and was doing extremely well. A.B.’s speech had improved, she appeared 

comfortable with the foster family, and she had regular visits with her three older siblings. 

¶ 42 At the time of the best-interest hearing, respondent’s current whereabouts were 

unknown, and she failed to maintain a stable residence. Also, respondent failed to engage in the 

recommended treatment and last visited A.B. in April 2018, over a year prior. 

¶ 43 In looking at the evidence in conjunction with the statutory factors, the trial court 

found it was in A.B.’s best interest to terminate respondent’s parental rights. Given the 

foregoing, the court’s finding terminating respondent’s parental rights was not contrary to the 

manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 44 C. Motion to Withdraw 

¶ 45 In S.M., 314 Ill. App. 3d at 685-86, this court set forth the proper procedure for 

appellate counsel’s request to withdraw based on an Anders motion in parental rights termination 

cases. First, we required counsel to set out any irregularities or potential errors in a brief that 

may arguably be meritorious in his client’s judgment. Id. at 685. Second, we required counsel 

to sketch the argument in support of these issues that could be raised and explain why he 

believed they are frivolous if such issues are identified. Id. (In In re Austin C., 353 Ill. App. 3d 

942, 946, 823 N.E.2d 981, 984 (2004), we clarified this statement by changing “if” in the above 

statement to “as to any such issue identified,” requiring counsel to identify, argue, and explain 

the frivolity of all potential issues.) Third, we required counsel to conclude the case presented no 

viable grounds for appeal. Id. Fourth, we required counsel to include the transcripts of the 

fitness and best-interest hearings. Id. 
- 11 - 

¶ 46 After examining the record, the motion to withdraw, and appellate counsel’s brief, 

we agree with counsel that this appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. Counsel’s motion 

and brief sufficiently comply with the above procedures. We therefore grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

¶ 47 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 48 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

¶ 49 Affirmed.