Court Opinion

ID: 9918379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 19:02:55.255595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:05.255060
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (1st) 231107
                                               No. 1-23-1107
                                         Order filed January12, 2024

                                                                                         Sixth Division

     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).
     ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                   IN THE

                                     APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                             FIRST DISTRICT

     ____________________________________________________________________________

     In re D.W., D.W., and D.W., minors                      )     Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                                             )     of Cook County.
     (THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                   )
                                                             )
              Petitioner-Appellee,                           )     Nos. 17 JA 967, 17 JA 965, 17 JA
                                                             )     966
     v.                                                      )
                                                             )
     LISA W.,                                                )     The Honorable
                                                             )     Demetrios Kottaras,
              Respondent-Appellant).                         )     Judge, presiding.

     ____________________________________________________________________________

              JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court.
              Presiding Justice Johnson and Justice C.A. Walker concurred in the judgment.

                                                    ORDER

          Held: The trial court’s finding that the mother of minor children was unfit and in the best
                interests of the children her parental rights should be terminated was not against the
                manifest weight of the evidence.

¶1           In 2017, three brothers, Dam., Dav., and De., then 9, 7, and 4 years old, were taken into

          the custody of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services due to multiple new

          and old abrasions on their bodies indicating abuse. The children told medical personnel that
     1-23-1107

        their mother, Lisa W., who adopted them in 2015, caused their injuries. Lisa was arrested and

        pleaded guilty to aggravated battery. She admitted to hitting the boys but claimed it occurred

        only once. The trial court stayed all visitation until recommended by the children’s therapists.

¶2         In 2021, the therapist for Dav. and De. determined they were ready to receive letters and

        prerecorded videos from Lisa. The two boys also visited her virtually in July of that year. But

        both boys emotionally regressed after the virtual visit, and their therapist recommended

        returning to letters and prerecorded videos. Lisa, who was upset about the decision, stopped

        communicating with the boys for several months. The oldest, Dam., who lives in a different

        foster home, has refused all contact with Lisa since 2017.

¶3         In May 2022, the State filed motions to terminate Lisa’s parental rights and to appoint a

        guardian with the right to consent to adoption for the three children. After a hearing, the trial

        court found Lisa was unfit because she (i) committed extreme or repeated cruelty to the

        children, (ii) failed to protect them from conditions injurious to their welfare, (iii) behaved in

        a depraved manner, and (iv) failed to make reasonable effort or progress toward the children

        returning home. The court further found terminating Lisa’s parental rights to be in the

        children’s best interests. The court entered a permanency goal of independence for Dam. and

        adoption for Dav. and De., whose foster mother wants to adopt them.

¶4         Lisa concedes the evidence supports the trial court’s unfitness finding. Still, she contends

        we should reverse because (i) the State impeded her progress and efforts at reunification by

        delaying visitation with the children for more than four years, and (ii) the trial court’s best

        interest finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree and affirm. The

        record shows the delay in visitation occurred because the children repeatedly said they did

        not want it. Further, the children’s therapist delayed visitation and never recommended in-

                                                      2
     1-23-1107

        person visits because of the trauma the children experienced in Lisa’s care, their adverse

        reaction to visits with her, and Lisa’s failure to acknowledge that her conduct harmed the

        children. Moreover, we agree with the trial court that the State proved by a preponderance of

        the evidence that terminating Lisa’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.

¶5                                              Background

¶6         In 2015, Lisa adopted three boys, Dam., Dav., and De. when they were six, four, and three

        years old, respectively. (The children, who are biological siblings, have no adoptive father.

        Lisa is married but separated from her husband in1997.) On September 21, 2017, the State

        filed petitions for adjudication of wardship, alleging the children were neglected due to

        injurious environment and abused based on physical abuse and substantial risk of physical

        injury. The State asserted that a DCFS investigator found the children had multiple scars,

        abrasions, and loop and linear marks on their bodies that, according to medical personnel, were

        consistent with abuse. The trial court granted the petitions, and the children were taken into

        temporary custody by DCFS.

¶7         Lisa was arrested and, in 2018, pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated battery of a

        child and sentenced to two years’ probation.

¶8         On April 23, 2018, the guardian ad litem filed an emergency motion asking the trial court

        to amend the visitation order so that the children would not be required to visit with Lisa against

        their will and visits would resume only on a recommendation by the children’s therapists. The

        motion asserted that the assigned social services agency, Lutheran Social Services of Illinois

        (LSSI), found that the children were engaging in behaviors as a result of their mother’s abuse,

        and two of the children said they did not want to visit with her.

                                                       3
       1-23-1107

¶9           In response, Lisa filed a motion arguing, in part, that LSSI was unreasonably barring her

          access to the children. She asked the trial court to (i) remove LSSI and assign a new service

          provider, (ii) order that the children’s current placement is unnecessary, and (iii) deny the

          GAL’s motion to suspend visitation and order the assigned agency to begin supervised visits.

¶ 10         The trial court ordered that both the children and Lisa engage in therapy. The court denied

          in-person visits and allowed Lisa to prepare recordings for the children to be played in the

          presence of their therapist. The court stated that therapeutically supervised visits could begin

          when the therapist believed appropriate, and the children wanted them.

¶ 11         After an adjudicatory hearing, the trial court found the children to be neglected due to

          injurious environment (705 ILCS 405/2-3(b) (West 2022)), physical abuse (705 ILCS 405/2-

          3(i) (West 2022)), and excessive corporal punishment. (705 ILCS 405/2-3(2)(v) (West 2022)),

          based on a stipulation of facts regarding Lisa’s battery conviction and injuries seen by DCFS

          caseworkers and medical personnel on the children’s bodies indicating abuse. The trial court

          adjudged the children wards of the court, determining that Lisa was unable to care for, protect,

          train, or discipline them for a reason other than financial circumstances. The court found that

          reasonable efforts had been made to the prevent removal of the children from the home and

          services aimed at family preservation and reunification had been unsuccessful. The court found

          removal from Lisa’s home and placement in the guardianship of DCFS to be in the children’s

          best interests. The court set a permanency goal of return home in 12 months, noting that the

          children were in services and improving, and Lisa was in services, though “minimizing” her

          responsibility for the abuse.

¶ 12         The permanency goal of return home in 12 months remained until February 2022, when

          the trial court changed the permanency goal to substitute care, pending determination on

                                                       4
       1-23-1107

          termination of parental rights. The court noted a lack of progress and the best interest of the

          minor children. The State filed a motion to appoint a guardian to consent to adoption for all

          three boys, alleging Lisa was unfit for (i) extreme and repeated cruelty to the children (750

          ILCS 50/1(D)(e) (West 2022)), (ii) failing to protect the children from conditions in their

          environment injurious to their welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(g) (West 2022)), (iii) behaving in a

          depraved manner (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i) (West 2022)), and (iv) failing to make reasonable

          efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for removal or reasonable progress toward

          return of the children within nine months after adjudication of neglect, abuse or dependency

          or within any nine months after that finding. (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m) (West 2022)).

¶ 13                                          Termination Trial

¶ 14         A proceeding to terminate a party’s parental rights under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987

          (705 ILCS 405/11 et seq. (West 2022)) occurs in two stages. First, the State must establish the

          parent is “unfit to have a child” under one or more of the grounds in the Adoption Act. In re

          D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 352 (2004); see 750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2022) (setting out bases for

          finding of unfitness). At the unfitness hearing, the State has the burden of proving the parent’s

          unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 352-53; 705 ILCS 405/2-

          29 (West 2022)). The heightened burden of proof arises because “the right of parents to control

          the upbringing of their children is a fundamental constitutional right.” In re D.W., 214 Ill. 2d

          289, 310 (2005); see also In re Shauntae P., 2012 IL App (1st) 112280, ¶ 88 (“Because the

          termination of parental rights constitutes a complete severance of the relationship between the

          parent and child, proof of parental unfitness must be clear and convincing.”).

¶ 15         If the trial court finds unfitness, the proceedings advance to the second stage, where the

          court determines whether termination of the parent’s rights is in the minor’s best interests. In

                                                       5
       1-23-1107

          re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 352. Once the State proves parental unfitness, the focus shifts to the child,

          and the interests of parent and child diverge. In re D.W., 214 Ill. 2d at 315. The preponderance-

          of-the-evidence standard is the burden of proof in the best interests hearing. Id.

¶ 16                                           Unfitness Hearing.

¶ 17          Before beginning the unfitness hearing, the trial court took judicial notice of the

          adjudication order from June 2018, finding neglect and injurious environment, physical abuse,

          and abuse/substantial risk of injury and excessive corporal punishment. The court also took

          judicial notice of the disposition order entered on September 14, 2018, the termination petition

          filed on May 31, 2022, and the State’s pleading under section 50/1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act

          (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m) (West 2022)), alleging six different nine month periods in which Lisa

          failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that served as the basis for removal.

¶ 18                                                 Exhibits

¶ 19          The State admitted 31 exhibits into evidence, including photos showing the marks found

          on the children, interviews with the children, and medical records indicating physical abuse

          was suspected. The State also admitted nine family service plans dating from September 2018

          through September 2022, numerous Child Family Therapy summaries, a copy of Lisa’s

          criminal disposition for aggravated battery, her psychological assessment from May 2018,

          evaluations from CCJCC addressing visitation, and records from Lisa’s therapist.

¶ 20          The September 12, 2018, family service plan stated the case was opened because Dav. had

          welts on his arms, legs, torso, and back and told his teacher that his mother had whipped him

          with an iPad charger cord. Dam. also had injuries. The plan stated that Lisa minimized her role

          in abusing the children. She requested visitation, but the children did not want to see her. A

          June 2018 court order granted Lisa visitation if recommended by the children’s therapist, the

          children wanted to visit, and a therapist supervised. The children lived in the same foster home
                                                         6
       1-23-1107

          after staying at a relative of Lisa’s until concerns were raised about the relative’s ability to

          keep the boys safe from Lisa. The permanency goal was set at return home within 12 months.

¶ 21         A CCJCC report dated November 30, 2018, stated that the children had told professionals

          they did not want to see Lisa or return to her care. In describing Lisa’s abuse, Dam. said she

          would hit him with an extension cord that left marks on him, not feed them, so they went to

          bed hungry and she let her husband almost kill him by choking and punching him in the throat.

          Dam. said he was afraid of Lisa and her husband and had no happy memories of living with

          her. Dav. also described being fearful of Lisa. According to the report, whether to allow

          therapeutic visits was difficult to determine, and the benefit of visits did not outweigh the

          potential harm given the children’s emotional reaction to seeing her again.

¶ 22         A March 2019 family service plan indicated that the children were not ready to visit with

          Lisa. The Plan stated that “[d]espite efforts by the therapist to prepare the *** minors for

          parent/child visits with [Lisa], the minors have not expressed interest in visits. Efforts to

          prepare them for visits will continue, and therapeutic visits will start if/when the therapist

          determines the minors are ready and willing to visit.”

¶ 23         Services plans from September 2019 and March 2020 stated that Lisa was participating in

          recommended services and had given her therapist letters and videos for the children, but they

          were not ready to read or view them. In addition, the children continued to tell their therapists

          they did not want visits with Lisa. Similarly, the September 2020 and March 2021services

          plans stated that the children did not want visitation, and their therapists were consulting each

          other to determine how to establish visits appropriately. Furthermore, Lisa had not been

          participating in therapy since March 2020 or providing her therapist with letters for the

          children.

                                                       7
       1-23-1107

¶ 24         According to a September 2021 family service plan, Dav. and De. began receiving letters

          and prerecorded video messages from Lisa in January 2021. They also had a video visit in July

          2021, but afterward, their therapists suspended all communications because the boys’ behavior

          regressed, and they struggled emotionally. Dav. and De. told their therapist they no longer

          wanted videos and would accept only her letters. According to her therapist, Lisa struggled

          with this setback, becoming fixated on her own needs and not the children’s, so she stopped

          communicating with them. Lisa’s therapist reported that Lisa “clearly does not understand the

          parent/child role that demands the parent support their children processing of their traumas in

          their own way and time without expectation that children will consider the parent’s need above

          their own.”

¶ 25         In March 2022, the permanency goal was modified to termination of parental rights.

¶ 26                                         Witness Testimony

¶ 27         Sean Cline, who works for Children’s Place Association, testified that when he was assigned

          to the case in June 2019, after it was transferred from LSSI, there had been no in-person,

          prerecorded videos, or live video visits between Lisa and the children under the June 2018 court

          order. Cline said Lisa completed psychological evaluations in May 2018 and January 2019. She

          also completed parenting classes in March 2018 and began individual therapy in May 2018. Cline

          spoke with Lisa’s therapist, who was unaware of the extent of Lisa’s abuse and was under the

          impression it had been a one-time incident until Cline sent her photos and other evidence. Lisa

          changed therapists in September 2019 and did not participate in therapy from March to September

          2020.

¶ 28         Cline testified that he spoke with Lisa by phone in September 2019. Lisa said she took the

          children to work in September 2017, and Dam. tried to steal food from a co-worker’s purse, which

          embarrassed her, and she “whooped them” when they got home. She said she hit all three boys

                                                       8
       1-23-1107

          because they knew what Dam. was doing. Lisa admitted she had gone too far but adamantly insisted

          it was a one-time incident despite pictures showing scarring in various stages of healing. She never

          sent pictures she promised Cline of the boys swimming a week before the incident, which she

          claimed would show no scarring.

¶ 29          Cline said he was concerned about Lisa’s lack of knowledge regarding the abuse,

          minimizing its severity, frequency, and history. He said her statements were contradictory—

          while she would acknowledge the abuse, she claimed to have done nothing to hurt the boys.

¶ 30          In 2019, De. told Cline that Lisa would bite his arm, make him smell her bad breath, and

          hit him with an extension cord. He told Cline that her boyfriend was even meaner and hit him

          a lot. Cline said the children’s case file contained contradictory information about Lisa’s

          husband. Cline’s understanding was that they were separated, but De. seemed frightened of the

          husband and claimed he had physically abused him.

¶ 31          As to visitation, Cline said his agency adopted the recommendations of the CCJCC,

          requiring collaboration between the children’s and Lisa’s therapists to determine what would

          be safe for the children. In January 2021, the therapists agreed that Dav. and De. were

          emotionally ready to start exchanging letters and prerecorded videos with Lisa. The children’s

          therapist first reviewed the letter or video and, if deemed appropriate, would share it with the

          children during a session. On cross-examination, Cline acknowledged that Lisa began writing

          letters to the children in November 2018, but they refused them until January 2021. Cline stated

          that the agency did not withhold the letters from the children, and the children’s therapists

          decided when they were emotionally ready for them.

¶ 32          In July 2021, Lisa visited virtually with Dav. and De. with their therapist present. After,

          the children told the therapist they were distressed and did not want virtual visits. Dav. and De.

          also began showing regressive behavior at school. The therapist discontinued virtual visits but

                                                         9
       1-23-1107

          allowed prerecorded video visits and letter exchanges because the boys said they were open to

          it. Lisa did not resume writing letters or making videos until December 2021. According to

          Lisa’s therapist, she was “stuck in her own feelings and how this was affecting her instead of

          realizing the impact her behaviors were having on the boys.” Cline acknowledged Lisa was

          likely disappointed that the children asked to stop virtual visits, but he found the five-month

          period in which Lisa failed to communicate with Dav. and De. to show a lack of understanding

          about how her behavior affected the boys. Virtual visits between Lisa and Dav. and De.

          resumed in July 2022 and occurred sporadically, about once a month. Cline said he did not ask

          the boys about the visits and was unaware of issues or concerns.

¶ 33         Cline agreed that Lisa consistently attended weekly therapy and attempted to address her

          treatment goals. He also acknowledged Lisa was willing to engage in additional services,

          including family therapy, parent/child psychotherapy, and parent coaching, but those services

          were not available to her absent in-person contact with the children. Nonetheless, Cline

          believed Lisa had not made substantial progress in taking responsibility for her physical abuse

          or understanding how her actions and behavior have affected the children and how to respond

          to the trauma they experienced in her care positively.

¶ 34         Darcy Boyd, a DCFS investigator, was assigned on September 14, 2017, after receiving a

          hotline call regarding Dav., then seven years old. Boyd met Dav. at his school on September

          19. She asked him to remove his shirt and saw old and new marks on his arms, torso, and back.

          Dav. told her Lisa caused the marks. Boyd also met then-nine-year-old Dam. who attended the

          same school and saw similar marks on him. Boyd said Dam. was crying but would not tell her

          how he got the marks.

                                                      10
       1-23-1107

¶ 35         Boyd said that the children’s injuries were significant. After talking to her supervisor, she

          took the boys into protective custody. At a hospital, she saw additional injuries, and the boys

          told Boyd they had a younger brother, De. The next day, with police assistance, Boyd removed

          De. from Lisa’s home and took him into protective custody. Boyd saw loop marks on his torso.

          Boyd said Lisa acknowledged hitting the boys with a stick, describing it as discipline and not

          abuse. In evidence are photos taken at the hospital showing loop marks and linear marks on

          the children’s legs, backs, arms, and torso in various stages of healing.

¶ 36                                          Lisa’s Testimony

¶ 37         After the State rested, Lisa testified that the children were placed with her in 2014, and she

          adopted them in 2015. She first used corporal punishment in 2017. She admitted to hitting

          them more than once and said she had remorse, and apologized to the children repeatedly. Lisa

          also told them they have a right to be angry at her for what she did.

¶ 38         Regarding services, Lisa testified that she completed a psychological assessment, engaged

          in therapy, completed a Juvenile Court Clinic evaluation, parenting classes, a psychiatric

          evaluation, and domestic violence counseling. She said she missed therapy from March to

          September 2020 due to the COVID pandemic and because of her and her mother’s health

          issues, but she has been consistently attending therapy since September 2020. Lisa was willing

          to participate in other recommended services, including parent coaching and family therapy,

          but they were not offered to her because the children were not ready for them yet. Lisa said

          she participated in all child and family team meetings and administrative case reviews. She

          kept in contact with the assigned caseworkers and consistently requested visits.

¶ 39         Lisa had no in-person visits with the children since they were taken into protective custody

          in 2017, though she repeatedly requested them. In 2018, Lisa sent letters to the children, which

                                                       11
       1-23-1107

          they received in 2019 because they were not ready before then. She began sending videos in

          2021 and received videos from Dav. and De. She never received letters or videos from Dam.

¶ 40         Lisa virtually visited with Dav. and De. in July 2021. She thought the visit went well, but

          virtual visits were suspended because De. had emotional problems after the visit. About two

          months later, she again began sending letters to Dav. and De. and sent them videos about a

          year later. Lisa said the delay was not to punish the boys but due to her medical issues as well

          as her parents’ medical issues. Virtual visits with Dav. and De. resumed in July 2022 without

          any cancellations. But Lisa had not visited with Dam.

¶ 41         Lisa said she began using corporal punishment in 2017 because her life was “spiraling out

          of control.” She was taking care of her parents who both had cancer and had her own medical

          issues and was under a lot of stress, which she did not handle well. On cross-examination, Lisa

          acknowledged that DCFS hotline calls were made in 2016 regarding Dam.’s welfare, and

          DCFS opened an investigation into her physical abuse of Dam. Lisa said she separated from

          her husband in 1997, but he continued coming to her house to visit their two biological

          children. She denied that her husband used corporal punishment on Dav. Dam., or and De. and

          said she would have stopped him if he had.

¶ 42         Lisa acknowledged she pleaded guilty to aggravated battery of a child and was placed on

          probation for to two years. Lisa denied telling Sean Cline that she hit the boys on only one

          occasion; she admitted she hit De. more than once and hit Dav. and Dam. more than she hit

          De. Lisa said the children’s wounds never led to bleeding and denied hitting De. on the face

          with a stick, biting the boys, or burning them. Shortly before the boys were taken into

          protective custody, De. fell off his bike at daycare, causing a scar on his face.

¶ 43                                          Unfitness Findings

                                                       12
       1-23-1107

¶ 44         After considering the evidence and testimony, the trial court found Lisa was unfit because

          she (i) committed extreme or repeated cruelty to the children based on the “multiple whupping

          marks” on the children, (ii) failed to protect them from conditions injurious to their welfare,

          (iii) behaved in a depraved manner, and (iv) failed to make reasonable effort or progress toward

          the children returning home. The trial court stated that the photographs admitted into evidence

          were “beyond offensive” and “demonstrate the degree of violence.” The trial court also

          considered the children’s “hesitation in having a continued relationship with their mother.”

          The court found that Lisa had not made reasonable progress, given that the children were afraid

          of her and did not want to meet or communicate with her.

¶ 45                                        Best Interest Hearing

¶ 46         Lisa did not appear at the best interest hearing. The trial court took judicial notice of the

          unfitness evidence and findings. The State again called Sean Cline, who testified that 15-year-

          old Dam. lived with his paternal great aunt since March 2021. He has an IEP and takes

          medication for ADHD and Major Depressive Disorder. Dam. had been diagnosed with PTSD

          with dissociative symptoms and was seeing a psychiatrist. He had been waitlisted for therapy

          and received trauma-focused therapy in the past. He was hospitalized for two weeks for

          suicidal ideation and was taken to the emergency room after ingesting too much edible

          marijuana. Cline said this was not Dam.’s first use of marijuana and opined that Dam. could

          benefit from substance abuse services.

¶ 47         Cline testified that Dam. was having instability issues because his foster parent was not

          following agency recommendations requiring supervised visits with his biological mother.

          Dam. was going on his own to see his biological mother, who told Cline she did not want to

          deal with Dam. because he was disrespectful. His foster parent also was not following the

                                                      13
       1-23-1107

          agency’s recommendations on preparing Dam. for adulthood. So, the agency was exploring

          other placement options. Dam., a freshman in high school, was failing in three classes,

          frequently tardy, and missing assignments. The agency recommended terminating Lisa’s

          parental rights to Dam., whom she had had no contact with since 2017. Dam. claimed Lisa

          tried to kill him, and he had no interest in a relationship with her now or in the future and

          wanted her parental rights terminated.

¶ 48         Cline testified that Dav. had been in the non-relative foster home of Catherine B. since

          May 2019, along with De., who arrived in November 2019. De., who had been receiving

          trauma therapy since 2018, took medication for ADHD. De. had made progress since moving

          to his foster home and maintained good grades, though he exhibited disruptive behavior. Lisa

          had withheld food from the children, and Dav. and De. hide food under their beds and take

          things at home and school that did not belong to them. De.’s teacher frequently contacted his

          foster mother to discuss his behavior, but he was improving.

¶ 49         Dav. has asthma and an inhaler. He also has DiGeorge Syndrome, caused by the deletion

          of a small segment of Chromosome 22, so he has a small stature and some developmental delay

          issues. He was not currently taking medication but was being monitored annually at Lurie

          Children’s Hospital’s DiGeorge Clinic. Dav. has an IEP and is doing well in school. Dav. and

          De. see their foster mother as their primary caregiver, are attached to her, and want her to adopt

          them. Cline opined that the foster mother provides a sense of security, stability, and

          permanency and ensures their needs are met. They have a loving relationship, and adoption by

          Catherine B. would be in the boys’ best interests.

¶ 50         Foster parent Catherine B. testified that Dav. and De. have been living with her since 2019,

          and she wants to adopt them. She said the boys are part of her family, and she loves them. She

                                                       14
       1-23-1107

          has another adopted son of 10 years, Jaylen, who was 13 years old. Jaylen has cerebral palsy

          and requires help, but Catherine B. is retired and has time to take care of him. Jaylen also has

          a DHS-provided personal assistant, and Dav. and De. help out by playing with Jaylen.

          Catherine B. recently had skin cancer currently in remission. If Catherine B. could not care for

          Dav. and De., her sister would become their primary caretaker. She also has a strong support

          system and family members who live nearby and are available to help.

¶ 51                                         Best Interest Ruling

¶ 52         After closing arguments, the trial court found the State proved by a preponderance of the

          evidence that the children’s best interests were in terminating Lisa’s parental rights. The court

          said that although Dam. was not currently in a pre-adoptive home, “he is suffering with the

          impact of the abuse. *** It is very clear*** there should be a termination of parental rights.

          And it is in [Dam’s] best interest.” As to Dav. and De., the court found “the quality of life that

          [Catherine B.] has provided these two children has been excellent, and I believe she’s on the

          path to continuing to do that.” The children “have a support system, *** they are loved and

          they are a part of a family and extended family.” The court concluded terminating parental

          rights was in Dav.’s and De.’s best interest.

¶ 53         At the permanency hearing, caseworker Sean Cline testified that his agency was

          recommending a permanency goal of independence for Dam. based on his current foster

          placement with his great aunt and his interest and willingness to work toward that goal. The

          agency was recommending a permanency goal of adoption for Dav. and De. because they have

          a stable, nurturing foster home and want to be adopted by Catherine B. The trial court agreed

          and entered the permanency orders Cline recommended.

¶ 54                                               Analysis

                                                          15
       1-23-1107

¶ 55                                          Best Interest Finding

¶ 56          Lisa concedes her use of corporal punishment was sufficient to support the trial court’s

          unfitness finding under subsections (e) and (i) of the Act. Thus, she has forfeited issues related

          to the unfitness finding. In re H.S., 2016 IL App (1st) 161589 ¶ 36. See also Ill. S. Ct. R.

          341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) (“Points not argued [in appellant’s brief] are waived and shall not

          be raised in the reply brief, in oral argument, or on petition for rehearing.”). Instead, she

          contends that (i) the delay in visitation warrants reversal of the best interest finding and (ii) the

          best interest finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 57          When the trial court finds a parent unfit under one of the grounds of section 1(D) of the

          Adoption Act, it must determine whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests

          of the child under 1-3 (4.05) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2022)).

          At a best interests hearing, the parent’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship

          yields to the child’s interest in a stable, loving home life. In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 364. The

          child’s best interest is the paramount consideration to which no other takes precedence. In re

          Austin W., 214 Ill. 2d 31, 46 (2005). The State bears the burden of proving that termination of

          parental rights and adoption is in the child’s best interests by a preponderance of the evidence.

          In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 366. We will not disturb a trial court’s best interests finding unless it

          is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re B’yata I., 2014 IL App (2d) 130558-B, ¶

          41. A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence if the facts clearly demonstrate

          that the court should have reached the opposite result. In re N.B., 191 Ill. 2d 338, 346 (2000).

          The sufficiency of the evidence in a termination-of-parental-rights case depends on the

          particular facts and circumstances presented. In re G.L., 329 Ill. App. 3d 18, 26 (2002).

          Because the grounds for unfitness are independent of one another, we may affirm the judgment

                                                         16
       1-23-1107

          if the evidence supports any of the trial court’s grounds of unfitness. In re Addison R., 2013 IL

          App (2d) 121318, ¶ 35 (single ground of unfitness sufficient to support finding of unfitness).

¶ 58         In determining a child’s best interests, the trial court considers 10 factors in section 1-

          3(4.05) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987: (i) the physical safety and welfare of the minor,

          including food, shelter, health, and clothing; (ii) the development of the minor’s identity; (iii)

          the minor’s background and ties, including familial, cultural, and religious; (iv) the minor’s

          sense of attachments; (v) the minor’s wishes and long-term goals; (vi) the minor’s community

          ties, including church, school, and friends; (vii) the minor’s need for permanence, including

          his or her relationships with parent figures, siblings, and other relatives; (viii) the uniqueness

          of every family and child; (ix) the risks attendant to the minor entering and being in substitute

          care; and (x) the preferences of the persons available to care for the minor. 705 ILCS 405/1-

          3(4.05) (West 2022). The trial court “is not required to explicitly mention, word-for-word,” the

          statutory factors. In re Janira T., 368 Ill. App. 3d 883, 894 (2006). In addition to these factors,

          the trial court may consider the nature and length of the child’s relationship with his or her

          present caretaker and the effect that a change in placement would have on the child’s emotional

          and psychological well-being. In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d at 262.

¶ 59         Lisa argues the State’s handling of the case warrants reversal of the best interest finding.

          Specifically, she contends the State, through the assigned agency and caseworker, is

          responsible for a three-year delay between the 2018 visitation order and her first virtual visit

          in 2021, which prevented her from making progress in reunifying with the children.

¶ 60         Lisa relies on In re Interest of Overton, 21 Ill. App. 3d 1014 (1974) for support. In Overton,

          the appellate court overturned the trial court’s finding that a mother was unfit because she

          failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for her children’s

                                                        17
       1-23-1107

          welfare. The court held that the finding was “not based upon clear and convincing evidence”

          because the mother had shown interest, concern, and responsibility as to her children's welfare,

          but DCFS had sabotaged or frustrated her efforts. Id. at 1019. The mother sent a gift to her

          children, but DCFS never delivered it. She wrote a letter to DCFS, which did not respond. Id.

          “If [the mother] did not see her children frequently enough, the Department was prepared to

          and did file a petition alleging that [the mother] did not show reasonable interest, yet, if she

          insisted upon seeing her children in opposition to the feelings of her case worker, her case

          worker may not have recommended the return of her children.” Id. In short, the mother made

          reasonable efforts, and the DCFS failed to meet her halfway “virtually ensur[ing] that once

          [the mother] was separated from her children she would eventually lose them permanently.”

          Id .

¶ 61             Lisa asserts that, as in Overton, the State hindered her efforts at reunification and “virtually

          ensured” her parental rights would be terminated by refusing to facilitate her visitation with

          the children for three years. We disagree. Overton is distinguishable as it involved an unfitness

          finding rather than a best interest finding. Further, Overton did not involve physical abuse, nor

          did the children indicate they wanted no contact with their mother.

¶ 62             Furthermore, the record does not show the State hindered visitation. Rather, the evidence

          shows the children’s wishes and the recommendations of their therapists guided visitation.

          CCJCC evaluated the children and decided, based on the trauma during Lisa’s care, that visits

          should not occur until the children wanted them and their therapists deemed them appropriate.

          Despite the efforts of the children’s therapists to prepare them for a visit, they remained

          adamant for years that they wanted no contact with her. The family service plans introduced

          into evidence document the children’s fear of Lisa and repeated refusal to have visits with her.

                                                           18
       1-23-1107

          Dam. refused all contact with Lisa since the case began, and not until January 2021 did Dav.’s

          and De.’s therapist deem them ready to receive letters and prerecorded messages from Lisa.

          They then met with Lisa virtually in July 2021 but struggled emotionally afterward, prompting

          their therapist to stop virtual visits and resume letters and prerecorded messages. Lisa chose

          not to send letters or videos for five months because, according to her therapist, she was upset

          with the decision.

¶ 63          Lisa notes that the State did not call the therapists to testify at the best interests hearing.

          The State was not required to call the therapists, as the record documents their findings and

          recommendations. Moreover, Lisa could have called the therapists to testify if she believed

          they were not working to restore the bond between her and the children and actively thwarted

          efforts at reunification. In short, the record shows the children’s caseworker and therapists

          attempted to restore the relationship and facilitated communication with Lisa through letters,

          videos, and, eventually, virtual visits. Nonetheless, for years, the children wanted no contact.

          Although Dav. and De. progressed to some contact, they never wanted in-person visits, and

          their therapists never found them emotionally ready for in-person visits.

¶ 64          We also disagree with Lisa’s alternative argument that the trial court’s best interest finding

          was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the State did not present testimony

          regarding the eight-month period between November 2022 and June 2023, when she had

          virtual visits with Dav. and De. Even assuming those visits went well, they do not provide

          grounds for reversing the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best

          interest. Notably, the trial court heard caseworker Cline testify about the recent virtual visits,

          which he said occured sporadically without any issues or concerns. So, the trial court could

          consider those visits in its best interest finding.

                                                         19
       1-23-1107

¶ 65         Moreover, the evidence supports the court’s finding. Dav. and De. have been placed in a

          safe, loving, happy, and appropriate foster home. They are bonded to their foster mother, who

          provides for all their needs. The foster mother testified that she loves the boys and wants to

          adopt them. The boys are well integrated into the family and extended family; they love their

          foster mother and want her to adopt them. As to Dam., he was 15 years old and has refused all

          contact with Lisa since 2017. The photos of his injuries show the extensive abuse he endured;

          he said he believes she tried to kill him and never wants to see her again. Although Dam.,

          unlike his brothers, is not in a pre-adoptive home, given the extent of the abuse and the absence

          of a relationship with Lisa for more than five years, the trial court’s finding that termination of

          parental rights was in his best interest was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 66         The State recommended Lisa’s parental rights be terminated. Lisa did not attend the

          hearing and thus did not testify on the issue of termination of her parental rights. The children’s

          cases have been in the court system for six years, during which time Lisa has never had an in-

          person visit with them because the children did not want them, and their therapist had not

          recommended them. As a result, the children could not be safely returned to her custody any

          time soon. It was in the children’s best interests to have the stability and permanency that their

          adoption by the foster parent could afford. In re D.F., 208 Ill. 2d 223, 231 (2003) (purpose of

          the Juvenile Court Act is to secure permanency for minors who have been removed from

          custody of their parents “at the earliest opportunity.” 705 ILCS 405/1-2(1) (West 2022)). Thus,

          we affirm the trial court.

¶ 67         Affirmed.

                                                        20