Court Opinion

ID: 9819394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:24:23.162716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:14.895597
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, specially concurring: I concur in the result of Justice Slater’s opinion and agree with most of his analysis. My only point of disagreement stems from the first claim addressed in the analysis section. Justice Slater observes that “[t]he Adoption Act does not require that the parent lose guardianship or custody of her children for the statutory period to begin to run.” 351 111. App. 3d at 1049. Although this statement is technically correct, the tolling of the statutory period is only relevant if the statute itself applies to the allegedly unfit parent. By its plain language, the statute only applies when there has been a “removal of the child from the parent” (reasonable efforts), and a failure to sufficiently work toward “the return of the child to the parent” (reasonable progress). 750 ILCS 50/l(D)(m) (West 2000). These provisions are inapposite under the instant facts because, during the relevant period, Teresa had both custody and guardianship of the minors. There simply was no prospect of “returning” the minors to her because the minors were never “removed” in the first place. Thus, I would reverse on this basis as well.