Court Opinion

ID: 9819652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:29:29.006072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:31.584074
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN, specially concurring: Although I agree with the result, I disagree with some of the majority’s analysis in reaching that result. Accordingly, I specially concur. The majority discusses at some length the sufficiency of the State’s evidence during a given nine-month period, as required by section 1(D) (m)(i) of the Adoption Act. However, respondent mother, in appealing the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights, has not raised any issue concerning the sufficiency of the State’s evidence during any nine-month period. Because the majority addresses this issue sua sponte, we do not know what response, if any, the State might have provided if respondent mother had raised the issue in her brief. It is at least possible that the State’s response might have caused the majority to modify its discussion or, perhaps, to eliminate it entirely. Although this court is otherwise affirming, the majority nonetheless deems the State’s evidence insufficient (in part) and declares that one aspect of the trial court’s finding of unfitness was “manifestly erroneously.” I conclude it is neither fair to either the State or the trial court nor appropriate for the majority to reach these conclusions sua sponte. Indeed, the first time that the State or the trial court will know that this issue even exists is when they receive a copy of this opinion.