Opinion ID: 2167237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Mark N.

Text: Although Mark participated in some services prior to the establishment of paternity, we focus only on Mark's conduct in the year following the June 5, 1996, neglect adjudication. During this period, the record indicates that DCFS caseworker Amelia Apperson was concerned about Mark's ability to parent C.N. By his own admission, he had been involved in C.N.'s life prior to DCFS involvement. C.N., however, was developmentally delayed due to a prior lack of stimulation and nurturing. Mark minimized the impact of the abuse on C.N. and took a simplistic view of her needs, not appreciating that C.N. required serious therapy, structure, and care. In August 1996, Apperson rated Mark's progress in demonstrating adequate parenting skills unsatisfactory. Apperson's rating was based on her own observations and reports from the visit supervisor and the in-home educator. Apperson also noted, in her written evaluation, that Mark has not cooperated with DCFS, that he has, at times    become verbally abusive to DCFS workers, the foster parents and other service providers, and that he has not signed any releases of information, including those necessary to make referrals for    counseling for family members whose children have been sexually abused. The circuit court had ordered Mark to participate in counseling for family members of sexual offenders. The adversarial role Mark assumed with DCFS continued beyond the immediate post-adjudication period into 1997. Mark persisted in his belief that he and Diane should not have been indicated, and was reluctant to engage in recommended services. Although Mark eventually obtained alcohol and psychological assessments, he failed to attend any appointments at Family Advocate, notwithstanding his prior agreement and the circuit court's order. The only counseling in which Mark participated was a telephone service of which DCFS had no information and had not approved. In light of this evidence, we conclude that the trial court's determination that Mark was unfit for failing to make reasonable progress toward the return of C.N. is not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the opposite conclusion is not clearly evident. We reject Mark's argument that the trial court penalized him for Diane's conduct. We believe the record sufficiently demonstrates Mark's lack of progress, independent of Diane's conduct. As a final matter, we note that the parties have not raised any issues involving the best interests hearing, the second stage of the proceeding to terminate respondents' parental rights. See 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 1998); Syck, 138 Ill.2d at 276-77, 149 Ill.Dec. 710, 562 N.E.2d 174. Therefore, in light of our conclusion that the circuit court's finding of unfitness is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court and affirm the judgment of the circuit court terminating respondents' parental rights to C.N.