Court Opinion

ID: 9365058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 22:03:53.589332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:42.962600
License: Public Domain

NOTICE
                                      2023 IL App (5th) 220589-U
                                                                                    NOTICE
 Decision filed 01/20/23. The
                                                                         This order was filed under
 text of this decision may be               NO. 5-22-0589                Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
 changed or corrected prior to
                                                                         not precedent except in the
 the filing of a Petition for
 Rehearing or the disposition of
                                               IN THE                    limited circumstances allowed
                                                                         under Rule 23(e)(1).
 the same.
                                   APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                             FIFTH DISTRICT
________________________________________________________________________

In re O.G., a Minor                         )     Appeal from the
                                            )     Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois,       )     Vermilion County.
                                            )
      Petitioner-Appellee,                  )
                                            )     No. 20-JA-71
v.                                          )
                                            )
J.G.,                                       )     Honorable
                                            )     Thomas O’Shaughnessy,
      Respondent-Appellant).                )     Judge, presiding.
________________________________________________________________________

          JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court.
          Justices Welch and Barberis concurred in the judgment.

                                             ORDER

¶1        Held: The circuit court’s determination that Father was an unfit person and that it
                was in the child’s best interest to terminate Father’s parental rights was not
                against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶2        Respondent, J.G. (Father), appeals the judgment terminating his parental rights to

his minor child, O.G. Father claims that the circuit court erred in terminating his parental

rights where the fitness and best interest determinations were against the manifest weight

of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

                                                  1
¶3                               I. BACKGROUND

¶4      Father is the biological father of O.G., born May 3, 2016. O.G. has a half-sister,

H.C., not related to Father. R.W. (Mother) is O.G. and H.C.’s biological mother and her

parental rights for both children were also at issue in the circuit court. R.W. and H.C.,

however, are not parties to this appeal and will only be discussed as necessary to provide

relevant background information for the issues presented.

¶5      The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) became involved with

Father’s family after a report was made against the children’s maternal grandfather. He

would punish H.C. for wetting her pants by hitting her and leaving her in soiled clothes for

hours. Mother was using drugs and homeless. Father was incarcerated for a drug related

crime and unable to care for the children.

¶6      On May 8, 2020, the State filed a juvenile petition for adjudication of wardship

claiming that O.G. had been neglected pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile

Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2018)). The State alleged in count I that O.G.

was in an environment injurious to his welfare due to Mother’s substance abuse. In count

II, the State alleged that O.G. was not receiving proper support, education, and remedial

care.

¶7      The circuit court held the shelter care hearing on May 8, 2020. Father was

incarcerated at the Southwestern Correction Center in East St. Louis, Illinois, and did not

appear for the hearing. The DCFS investigator, Sarah Sieberns, testified that Mother was

using methamphetamines. Mother was “homeless and stay[ed] in random drug and

flophouses.” Four-year-old O.G. had not received medical care in three years. The circuit
                                           2
court found probable cause for filing the petition based on Mother’s substance abuse and

because O.G. had not received necessary care. The Guardianship Administrator of DCFS

was granted temporary custody of O.G. The written temporary custody order was filed on

May 14, 2020.

¶8     Father was not transported by the Department of Corrections for the adjudication

hearing set on October 12, 2020, due to COVID-19 concerns. The case was reset for an

adjudication hearing on December 4, 2020. On that date, Mother admitted to the allegations

in count II of the State’s petition which stated that O.G. was not receiving support,

education, and remedial care. She also informed the circuit court that Father’s anticipated

release date was December 18, 2020. Father was not present for Mother’s admission

because he had not been transported to the hearing.

¶9     On April 7, 2021, Father appeared for the adjudication hearing. He stipulated to

count II of the State’s petition. Father had been released from the Department of

Corrections and provided the circuit court with his new address. A written order of

adjudication was filed on April 9, 2021. O.G. was found to be neglected.

¶ 10   On September 10, 2021, the circuit court held a dispositional hearing. Father did not

appear. He was found unfit, unable, and unwilling to care for, protect, train, educate,

supervise, or discipline O.G. Placement with Father was found to be contrary to O.G.’s

health, safety, and best interests. Father was required to demonstrate sobriety and stability.

O.G. was made a ward of the circuit court. Custody of O.G. was placed with the

Guardianship Administrator of DCFS.

                                              3
¶ 11    The circuit court held a permanency review hearing on December 15, 2021, and

Father did not appear. Father’s counsel informed the circuit court that Father was expected

to be released from parole later that month. Drug testing was a requirement for his parole

and Father understood that he would need to continue with drug testing for this case. Father

had otherwise completed services recommended on the service plan. The State

recommended a finding that Father had made reasonable efforts and reasonable and

substantial progress during that reporting period. The circuit court found that Father had

made reasonable and substantial progress and reasonable efforts toward O.G. returning

home.

¶ 12    Father was subsequently arrested. He was charged on January 14, 2022, with

possession of methamphetamine precursor. Father was held in custody at the Vermilion

County jail while he awaited his criminal trial.

¶ 13    On March 30, 2022, the circuit court held a permanency review hearing. The circuit

court found that the permanency goal should be changed to substitute care pending

determination of termination of parental rights. Father was no longer demonstrating that he

was making reasonable and substantial progress or reasonable efforts toward the return of

O.G. Father was required to complete a substance abuse assessment with treatment

recommendations, demonstrate sobriety, and obtain and maintain stable housing and

income.

¶ 14    The State filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights on April 5, 2022,

alleging that Father was unfit because he failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest,

concern, or responsibility as to O.G.’s welfare. The State additionally alleged that Father
                                             4
failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the

removal of O.G. and reasonable progress toward the return of O.G. within a nine-month

period after adjudication. The alleged nine-month period was from July 5, 2021, through

April 5, 2022.

¶ 15   The circuit court held the fitness hearing on July 1, 2022. Cassandra Carter and

Stephanie Jones testified during the hearing. Carter was the initial caseworker on Father’s

case. Jones took over as the caseworker in June or July of 2021.

¶ 16   Carter testified that Father had completed an integrated assessment. Based on the

integrated assessment, Father was required to complete substance abuse treatment,

parenting classes, and mental health services. He was also required to be compliant with

his parole, attend visitation, and obtain housing and income.

¶ 17   Carter additionally testified that Father was compliant with services while she was

his caseworker. He was not referred for additional substance abuse services, parenting

classes, or mental health services. As a condition of Father’s parole, he was required to

complete drug testing; therefore, no additional services were required. Carter did not refer

Father for parenting services because Father was engaged in visitation and there were no

concerns during his visits. Father had completed a mental health assessment and additional

services were not required. Father was also able to maintain stable housing, stable income,

and he was compliant with his parole requirements.

¶ 18   According to Carter, Father was near the “halfway point” of having O.G. returned.

She believed that Father was moving towards the goal of O.G. returning home. Carter also

                                             5
testified that a drug related arrest for methamphetamine precursor would be a reason to

reevaluate a service plan to determine whether additional services were needed.

¶ 19   Stephanie Jones testified to the progress Father made on his service plan after she

was assigned to his case. Father did not need parenting services when she became his

caseworker. He had completed a substance abuse program when he was previously

incarcerated, and an additional program was not required. Visitation was “monitored” and

not “supervised.” Father had also complied with the housing and employment

requirements. Jones had hoped to return O.G. to Father in the summer of 2022.

¶ 20   Father was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine precursor in

January of 2022. Because of the criminal charge, additional services were added to Father’s

service plan. Jones testified that Father was required to complete additional substance

abuse services and she recommended parenting classes. Father was also required to

reengage in visitation and obtain stable income. Father was not able to have visitation with

O.G. at the jail. He maintained contact with O.G. through phone calls, “video chats,” and

by sending letters.

¶ 21   After Jones testified, the State rested, and no additional evidence was presented. The

State then argued that Father was in the same position that he was in at the start of the case.

Father argued that he had made reasonable efforts and progress through December 15,

2021, and the circuit court had entered an order finding that reasonable progress and efforts

had been made. Father further argued that he continued to be compliant through January

14, 2022. Father had continued to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or

responsibility while held in custody. He had maintained interest and concern as shown
                                           6
through phone calls and letters to O.G. Father argued that he also maintained responsibility.

He had only been charged with a crime, and he had not been found guilty.

¶ 22   The circuit court considered that Father was incarcerated during the first seven

months of the case. After he was released from custody, Father began to comply with his

service plan. Father was then taken back into custody in January of 2022, and remained in

custody. Because the pending charges against Father were related to methamphetamines,

Father would need to restart and reengage in the same services that he was initially required

to complete. Father had not completed the services necessary for reunification.

¶ 23   The circuit court first considered whether the State had proven that Father had failed

to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to O.G.’s welfare

under section 1(D)(b) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020). The circuit

court considered that Father’s conduct demonstrated that he had an interest in O.G. Father,

however, failed to maintain a reasonable degree of concern for O.G. because he had failed

to correct the behavior that was the basis for removal.

¶ 24   The circuit court next considered whether Father made reasonable efforts or

reasonable progress under sections 1(D)(m)(i) and 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act. The

nine-month period of July 5, 2021, to April 5, 2022, was considered when determining

whether reasonable efforts or reasonable progress were made. The circuit court found that

Father had not corrected his circumstances and continued to fail to provide necessary care

for O.G. Father was in custody when the case was filed and was in custody at the conclusion

of the nine-month period. Father also had not made reasonable progress towards the return

of O.G. during the nine-month period. At the beginning of the nine-month period, it had
                                           7
appeared that Father was making progress towards O.G.’s return. At the end of the nine-

month period, Father was further away from the return of O.G. than the beginning of the

period. The circuit court found that the State had established by clear and convincing

evidence that Father was unfit. On July 19, 2022, the circuit court entered a written finding

of unfitness.

¶ 25   On August 25, 2022, the circuit court held a best interest hearing. Stephanie Jones,

Father’s caseworker, testified for the State. Jones testified that Father’s last visit with O.G.

took place on January 7, 2022. After that time, Father had been held in custody. While in

custody, he was “fairly consistent” with having “video chats” with O.G.

¶ 26   Jones testified that on February 9, 2021, O.G. was placed with his maternal great

aunt and uncle. H.C. was placed in the same foster home. O.G. had bonded with his foster

family, was loved, well cared for, and appeared happy. The foster family supported O.G.

in receiving counseling services through the Center for Youth and Family Solutions. The

foster family had indicated to Jones that they wished to proceed with adoption.

¶ 27   No further evidence was presented after Jones testified. The State asked the circuit

court to terminate Father’s parental rights. Father argued that his rights should not be

terminated. He had completed services in December of 2021. Father acknowledged that he

had a setback in January of 2022, because he was being held in custody. O.G. saw Father

as a father figure and Father maintained contact with O.G. while in custody.

¶ 28   The circuit court found that it was in O.G.’s best interest to terminate father’s

parental rights and grant the Guardianship Administrator of DCFS the power to consent to

adoption. The circuit court found that the foster placement was the least disruptive
                                         8
placement for O.G. The circuit court additionally considered O.G.’s community ties, need

for permanence, which included his need for stability and continuity of relationships with

parent figures and with siblings, the uniqueness of the family and child, the risks attendant

to entering and being in substitute care, and the preferences of the foster family when

determining O.G.’s best interests.

¶ 29   The circuit court stated that Father’s situation was “more than just a step

backwards.” The circuit court considered the child’s needs and his need for permanence

and stability. Father was not able to provide stability and permanence for O.G. On

September 1, 2022, a formal written order was entered terminating Father’s parental rights

of O.G. This appeal followed.

¶ 30                                 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 31   On appeal, Father argues that the circuit court erred in its fitness and best interest

determinations. Father argues that the decision to terminate his parental rights was against

the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 32   The authority to involuntarily terminate parental rights is found in the Juvenile

Court Act (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2020)) and the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/0.01

et seq. (West 2020)). Under section 2-29(2) of the Juvenile Court Act, involuntary

termination of parental rights involves a two-step process. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West

2020). First, the State must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent is

an unfit person as defined in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West

2002)). In re Donald A.G., 221 Ill. 2d 234, 244 (2006). If the circuit court determines that

a parent is unfit, then the circuit court proceeds to the second step in determining whether
                                               9
it is in the child’s best interests to terminate parental rights. In re Donald A.G., 221 Ill. 2d

at 244.

¶ 33                                A. Parental Unfitness

¶ 34      A circuit court’s determination that a parent is unfit will not be reversed unless it is

contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re N.G., 2018 IL 121939, ¶ 29. A

determination is against the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is

clearly apparent. In re N.G., 2018 IL 121939, ¶ 29.

¶ 35      The circuit court found that the State had established by clear and convincing

evidence that Father was unfit based on multiple grounds under section 1(D) of the

Adoption Act. Father failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or

responsibility as to the child’s welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020)); Father failed

to make a reasonable effort to correct the conditions that led to the removal of his child

(750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2020)); and Father failed to make reasonable progress

toward the child’s return home (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2020)).

¶ 36      “A finding of unfitness will stand if supported by any one of the statutory grounds

set forth in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act.” In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1052,

1064 (2006). Section 1(D)(b) provides that the “[f]ailure to maintain a reasonable degree

of interest, concern or responsibility as to the child’s welfare” is a ground for finding a

parent unfit. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020). “Because the language of subsection

1(D)(b) is stated in the disjunctive, any of the three elements on its own can be the basis

for an unfitness finding: the failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest or concern

or responsibility as to the child’s welfare.” In re Shauntae P., 2012 IL App (1st) 112280,
                                              10
¶ 90. Reasonable efforts and reasonable progress are separate and distinct grounds for

finding a parent unfit under section 1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act. In re Jacorey S., 2012

IL App (1st) 113427, ¶ 21.

¶ 37   “Reasonable efforts” relate to correcting the conditions that led to the removal of

the children and are judged by a subjective standard based upon the effort that is reasonable

for a particular person involved. In re Jacorey S., 2012 IL App (1st) 113427, ¶ 21. The

circuit court must determine whether the parent made earnest and conscientious strides

toward correcting the conditions that led to the removal of the children. In re L.J.S., 2018

IL App (3d) 180218, ¶ 24.

¶ 38   “Reasonable progress” is an objective standard focused on the goal of returning the

child to the parent. In re D.D., 309 Ill. App. 3d 581, 589 (2000). Progress is measured by

the parent’s compliance with the circuit court’s directives, services plans, or both and

requires the parent to make measurable or demonstrable movement toward the

reunification goal in the near future. In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1067.

¶ 39   Father was incarcerated when O.G. was removed from care based on Mother’s

substance abuse. O.G. was not receiving proper or necessary support. A service plan was

created for Father to establish action steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal

of O.G. Father was required to complete substance abuse, parenting, and mental health

services. He was also required to be compliant with his parole, attend visitation, and obtain

housing and income.

¶ 40   Father had engaged in services at the beginning of the nine-month period, July 5,

2021, until he was arrested for a drug related crime in January of 2022. Additional services
                                              11
were required due to Father’s arrest, including additional substance abuse services and

parenting classes. Father also needed to reengage in visitation and find employment. From

January of 2022 through April 5, 2022, Father was in the same position as when the case

began. Father had not shown that he had made reasonable efforts where he had not

corrected the conditions that caused the removal of O.G.

¶ 41   Father was not able to demonstrate reasonable progress where he had not made

measurable or demonstrable movement toward the reunification goal. Because of Father’s

arrest, he was further away from the reunification goal at the end of the nine-month period

than the beginning. The circuit court’s determination that Father had not made reasonable

efforts and reasonable progress was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 42   Having found that the circuit court correctly determined that Father was unfit for

failure to make reasonable progress, we do not need to address whether he was unfit for

failing to demonstrate a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to his

child’s welfare under section 1(D)(b). See In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198, 217 (2002).

¶ 43                                 B. Best Interest

¶ 44   After the circuit court determines whether a parent is unfit and their rights can be

terminated, the focus shifts to the child’s best interest and whether parental rights should

be terminated. In re S.K.B., 2015 IL App (1st) 151249, ¶ 48. “At a best-interests hearing,

the parent’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship must yield to the child’s

interest in a stable, loving home life.” In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 364 (2004). The circuit

court’s best interest determination will not be disturbed unless it is contrary to the manifest

weight of the evidence. In re R.L., 352 Ill. App. 3d 985, 1001 (2004).
                                              12
¶ 45   In making a best interest determination, section 1-3(4.05) of the Juvenile Court Act

requires a circuit court to consider factors for termination within “the context of the child’s

age and developmental needs.” 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2020). The circuit court

must consider the following factors: (1) the physical safety and welfare of the child, (2) the

development of the child’s identity, (3) the child’s background and ties, (4) the child’s

sense of attachments, (5) the child’s wishes, (6) the child’s community ties, (7) the child’s

need for permanence, (8) the uniqueness of every family and child, (9) the risks attendant

to entering and being in substitute care, and (10) the preferences of the persons available

to care for the child. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2020).

¶ 46   Father argues that he maintained contact with O.G. while in custody, by video

chatting and writing letters. While Father has demonstrated an interest in maintaining the

parent-child relationship, the circuit court’s focus must shift to O.G.’s needs. Father was

not able to provide permanence and stability for O.G.

¶ 47   O.G. had been living with his maternal great aunt and uncle, as well as his half-

sister, for a year and a half. Jones testified at the best interest hearing that O.G. was loved,

well cared for, and happy in his foster placement. O.G. has bonded with his foster family

and his half-sister. His foster family is supportive of O.G.’s counseling services and have

ensured that he receives appropriate services. Jones had no concerns about the foster

family. O.G.’s need for permanency would be satisfied because the foster family was

willing to pursue adoption of both O.G. and H.C.

¶ 48   The circuit court was presented with sufficient evidence to make its best interest

determinations. Accordingly, we find that the circuit court’s decision to terminate Father’s
                                            13
parental rights was in O.G.’s best interest and was not against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

¶ 49                             III. CONCLUSION

¶ 50   For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Vermilion County is

affirmed.

¶ 51   Affirmed.

                                           14