Court Opinion

ID: 9927760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 22:03:34.845358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:42.618476
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (5th) 230652-U
             NOTICE
                                                                                              NOTICE
 Decision filed 01/29/24. The
                                                                                   This order was filed under
 text of this decision may be                NO. 5-23-0652
                                                                                   Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
 changed or corrected prior to
                                                                                   not precedent except in the
 the filing of a Petition for                    IN THE                            limited circumstances allowed
 Rehearing or the disposition of
                                                                                   under Rule 23(e)(1).
 the same.
                                   APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                               FIFTH DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

In re ALEXIS S., a Minor                        )     Appeal from the
                                                )     Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois,           )     Edgar County.
                                                )
        Petitioner-Appellee,                    )
                                                )
v.                                              )     No. 20-JA-8
                                                )
Jessica S.,                                     )     Honorable
                                                )     Matthew L. Sullivan,
        Respondent-Appellant).                  )     Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

         JUSTICE McHANEY delivered the judgment of the court.
         Presiding Justice Vaughan and Justice Boie concurred in the judgment.

                                              ORDER

¶1       Held: Where the trial court’s orders finding that Jessica S. was an unfit parent and that
               the best interest of the minor child warranted termination of her parental rights were
               not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, we affirm the orders.

¶2       Jessica S. (Jessica) is the mother of a girl, Alexis S. (Alexis). 1 The Department of Children

and Family Services (DCFS) was involved with Jessica and Alexis with an intact family services

         1
          At the time of this DCFS case, Jessica was also the mother of an older girl and a younger boy,
Cole W. The unnamed older daughter is not the subject of a DCFS case, and she lives with her biological
father. Although Alexis and Cole were both removed from Jessica’s home at the same time, only Alexis is
involved in this case. DNA testing confirmed that Douglas Q. was the biological father of Cole, and he has
been working a service plan to have Cole returned to him. On May 1, 2023, Jessica’s parental rights to Cole
were terminated. Cole’s case is not included in this appeal. In addition, Jessica gave birth to another boy,
Kaiden H., in May 2022. During that pregnancy, Jessica tested positive for methamphetamine, and upon
his birth, DCFS opened a separate case for this child and removed him from Jessica’s home. Kaiden’s case
is also not part of this appeal.
                                                     1
program case. Due to Jessica’s lack of progress/success in this intact family case, and because of

concerning reported issues involving Jessica’s substance abuse, unsanitary housing conditions, and

suspected injuries to Alexis’s younger brother, Cole W., DCFS removed Alexis and Cole from

Jessica’s care in late May 2020. Both the State and Jessica filed numerous motions to continue the

adjudicatory hearing, which was not held until April 6, 2021. Due to Jessica’s failure to maintain

a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for Alexis and failure to make reasonable

efforts and/or progress towards the return of Alexis to her care, the State filed its motion to

terminate her parental rights. After the trial court found that Jessica was an unfit parent, the court

concluded that it was in Alexis’s best interest to terminate her parental rights. On appeal, Jessica

contends that because the State did not comply with the statutory timeline for holding the

adjudicatory hearing, the adjudicatory order must be dismissed without prejudice. Jessica also

appeals the court’s orders that she was an unfit parent and that Alexis’s best interest required the

termination of her parental rights.

¶3                                        I. BACKGROUND

¶4     Alexis was born on March 17, 2016. Her biological father was alleged to be Eric C. 2 The

trial court terminated his parental rights to Alexis on May 1, 2023. Based upon various reports in

the record, DCFS was working with One Hope United and its caseworkers to coordinate services

in this case. Before the State filed its petition for adjudication of wardship in Edgar County circuit

court on May 26, 2020, DCFS had instigated an intact family services case. A “reporter” made

three reports involving “concerning” behaviors and conditions. On April 18, 2020, the reporter

stated that Jessica was a known methamphetamine user and had used drugs in the presence of

Alexis. The reporter also stated that Alexis had been left outside and unsupervised, which resulted

       2
           Eric C. never completed a DNA test to verify paternity and is not part of this appeal.
                                                       2
in the local police being called on several occasions. In addition, the reporter stated that the home

was not in good shape with holes in the walls and the presence of mold on the floors. Then on May

8, 2020, the reporter saw Jessica use methamphetamine in front of Alexis. The reporter also saw

Jessica blow smoke, of unknown origin, into Alexis’s face, and noted that the home was always

“full of smoke.” Additionally, the reporter indicated that Jessica frequently yelled at Alexis. On

May 22, 2020, the reporter found maggots and flies around food sitting on counters in the home,

and trash was piled up throughout the home. The reporter also commented that Alexis was unclean

and needed a bath. 3

¶5      On May 26, 2020, the Stated filed its petition for adjudication of wardship stating that

Alexis was neglected, abused, or dependent on the basis that Jessica had a history of substance

abuse and had tested positive for methamphetamine on January 8, 2020; Jessica had not provided

a safe and adequate environment as Alexis had been seen sitting on a second story windowsill with

the window open and had also been allowed outside the home without supervision; the home

environment was also not safe and adequate because it was littered with trash and cigarette butts;

and Al’s younger brother had unexplained burns and bruises, an unexplained leg fracture, and a

diagnosis of failure to thrive. 705 ILCS 405/2-3, 2-4 (West 2020). The trial court granted the

        3
          The record on appeal contains information about numerous DCFS “indicated” findings for
substantial risk of physical injury/environment injurious to the health and welfare of Alexis S. and her
younger brother. The “indicated” findings were the result of investigations involving Jessica and her
children. The dates of the indicated findings are the dates when the investigations were concluded and do
not necessarily match up with dates when DCFS witnessed or received reports about the conditions and/or
injuries. Thus, the dates of the findings are both before and after the removal of the children from the home
in this case. The dates of the seven “indicated” findings are: April 12, 2019—substantial risk of physical
injury/environment injurious to health and welfare by neglect and environmental neglect; June 21, 2019—
burns by neglect and substantial risk of physical injury/environment injurious to health and welfare by
neglect; February 11, 2020—environmental neglect and substantial risk of physical injury/environment
injurious to health and welfare by neglect; March 6, 2020—substantial risk of physical injury/environment
injurious to health and welfare by neglect; June 15, 2020—inadequate supervision; July 2, 2020—
substantial risk of physical injury/environment injurious to health and welfare by neglect; July 7, 2020—
cuts, bruises, welts, abrasions, and oral injuries.
                                                     3
State’s petition for adjudication of wardship finding that the State established probable cause that

there was an immediate and urgent necessity to remove Alexis from the home, that reasonable

efforts to keep Alexis in the home did not eliminate the necessity of removing Alexis from that

home and placed Alexis in the temporary custody of DCFS.

¶6      On June 2, 2020, Jessica made her first appearance in court with an attorney. The trial court

set the adjudicatory hearing for July 28, 2020.

¶7      On the date of the scheduled July 28, 2020, adjudicatory hearing, the State filed its motion

to continue because the State’s witnesses had not yet been served with subpoenas, Alexis’s father

needed to receive notice of the hearing, and medical records had been received but not certified

for introduction into evidence. The court noted that Jessica and Eric C., Alexis’s purported father,

were present in court, as well as Jessica’s attorney. During the hearing, Eric C. asked about a DNA

test. The trial court asked Jessica’s attorney if he had any objection to continuing the adjudicatory

hearing. Jessica’s attorney stated that he had no objections to the continuance suggesting that the

court should wait until the DNA test results were done. When asked how long it would take for

the DNA results to be available, the DCFS representative approximated six to eight weeks. The

court continued the adjudicatory hearing to September 22, 2020. The record contains no written

order, and the transcript indicates that the trial court made no specific factual findings on the record

about “good cause” being shown for the continuance or that the continuance was consistent with

the health, safety, and best interests of the minor. Id. § 2-14(c).

¶8      On September 16, 2020, attorney Daniel Arbogast entered his appearance on behalf of

Jessica. The following day he filed a motion to continue the adjudicatory hearing, asking the court

for more time to review the case, consult with Jessica, interview witnesses, and pursue any needed

discovery.

                                                   4
¶9     On September 22, 2020, the trial court held a hearing in this case. As of that date, Eric C.

had not shown for two scheduled appointments for his DNA test. The DCFS representative stated

that if Eric C. appeared at the third appointment for the test, results would likely be back in late

November. The trial court initially planned to set the adjudicatory hearing for November 22, 2020,

but noted that if the DNA results were available, Eric C. still would not have counsel appointed.

The court suggested that November 22, 2020, should be used as a status hearing instead of the

adjudicatory hearing. The trial court specifically asked Jessica and her attorney if they had any

objections to postponing the adjudicatory hearing until after the November 22, 2020, status

hearing, and attorney Arbogast said no. The trial court granted Jessica’s previously filed motion

for a continuance and set the next status hearing for November 22, 2020.

¶ 10   DCFS, through its agency One Hope United, interviewed Jessica and determined what

services she required. At the time of the interview, Jessica was 31. She reported six years of sexual

abuse as a child. The perpetrator was a maternal uncle. Jessica also reported a history of domestic

violence in her personal relationships. Jessica acknowledged that she frequently used marijuana,

and admitted to a past unspecified addiction, but stated that she stopped using drugs seven years

ago when she became pregnant. She reported that her father was a methamphetamine addict who

overdosed and died, and that her brother is also a methamphetamine addict. Additionally, Jessica

reported that she has a family history of mental health issues. She reported that she was being

treated by a physician for depression and anxiety and the doctor prescribed medications for those

conditions. Jessica informed DCFS that she did not believe she needed substance abuse services,

because she had “passed” all drug tests since the “date of the incident.” DCFS determined that

Jessica needed to have substance abuse treatment, individual mental health therapy, and parenting

education and coaching.

                                                 5
¶ 11    On November 24, 2020, the trial court held a status hearing. Jessica was not present, and

her attorney advised that she was quarantined due to alleged exposure to COVID-19. The trial

court asked Jessica’s attorney if she was seeking a continuance. Attorney Arbogast confirmed that

he was asking for the continuance and suggested that the next court date of January 5, 2021, should

also be just a status hearing instead of the adjudicatory hearing. The State concurred in that

decision.

¶ 12    On January 5, 2021, the trial court called the case for the scheduled status hearing. Jessica

was reportedly in a hospital. The record does not contain a transcript of the hearing, but the court

noted that the case was continued to January 26, 2021, for a status hearing.

¶ 13    On January 26, 2021, Jessica was present in court with her attorney. The record does not

contain a transcript of this hearing. The record shows that the court continued the case to March

2, 2021, on which date the adjudicatory hearing was set.

¶ 14    On March 2, 2021, the State filed its motion to continue the adjudicatory hearing. There is

no written motion in the record on appeal. There is also no transcript of the hearing in the record.

However, the court noted that it granted the motion “without objection” and continued the

adjudicatory hearing to April 6, 2021.

¶ 15    On April 6, 2021, the trial court held the adjudicatory hearing. The State called two

witnesses to testify.

¶ 16    The State first called Melissa Eldred, a child protection investigator employed by DCFS.

She testified that she has been involved in several investigations involving Jessica and Alexis. She

stated that Alexis is currently five years old, and her younger brother is currently three years old.

She confirmed that on May 22, 2020, DCFS received a telephone call about the family, and she

was assigned to investigate. She initially spoke with three individuals, and then went to Jessica’s

                                                 6
apartment accompanied by a police officer. Jessica allowed Eldred to enter her home. Eldred

testified that from her vantage point near the front door of the apartment, she could see trash piled

up in multiple locations, plus a board with either nails or staples sticking out of it. She witnessed

the younger child slip and fall on a discarded frozen pizza cardboard circle. Eldred testified that

both children’s feet and faces were quite dirty. An unknown female was sleeping on the sofa. The

police officer attempted to wake the female but was unsuccessful. Eldred removed the children

from the home, placed them in DCFS protective custody, and transported them to a local hospital.

The male child had multiple bruises on his forehead, chest, upper thigh, and behind a knee. Eldred

testified that following a February 2019 report that was ultimately found to be “indicated,” DCFS

instituted an intact family case for Jessica. At that time, DCFS had concerns about Jessica’s mental

health as she was engaged in self-mutilating behaviors. Additionally, Jessica tested positive for

methamphetamine. The intact family case was designed to assist Jessica with substance abuse

treatment and mental health counseling. Eldred testified that Jessica was the subject of another

indicated report in May 2019 that involved burn injuries and an environment injurious to health.

Finally, Eldred testified that there were two other indicated reports in December 2019 and January

2020 involving an environment injurious to health before DCFS took the children into protective

custody.

¶ 17   On cross-examination, Eldred testified that there had been unfounded calls about Jessica

and the children. She testified that the children’s pediatrician did not make any report of child

abuse and that DCFS did not know how Cole received the burn injury, which was from a cigarette.

¶ 18   The State next called William Griffin, who testified that he performs general repair work

for Quality Housing, the company that owns the apartment complex where Jessica and the children

lived. On May 22, 2020, Griffin investigated water damage in the apartment directly below

                                                 7
Jessica’s apartment. Thereafter, he went to Jessica’s apartment to investigate the source of the

water. Upon entering the apartment, he noticed trash piled up in all corners, a lot of damage to the

apartment walls, and water and dirty diapers covering the bathroom floor, which was the source

of the leak into the apartment below. In one area, he said that the storm screen door could not be

opened because of the trash that was thrown in that vicinity. He stated that he and a lady named

Ruby, who was with him in the apartment, took photographs. He identified the photographs of

Jessica’s apartment taken on that date. He also testified that approximately two months earlier, he

and Ruby were inside Jessica’s apartment, and while there were issues of trash and damage to the

walls, the amount of trash was not as significant as witnessed on May 22, 2020.

¶ 19   On cross-examination, Griffin testified that in examining the bathtub in the apartment, he

determined that someone had dismantled the drain overflow in the bathtub, which resulted in the

flooding in the downstairs apartment. He confirmed that Jessica’s children were present in the

apartment on May 22, 2020.

¶ 20   The State next called Ruby Floyd, who testified that she was employed by Quality Housing

as a property manager. She testified that she and Griffin entered Jessica’s apartment on May 22,

2020, to investigate a water leak. She testified that Jessica’s children were present. In addition, a

Morgan’s Plumbing representative was also present. Floyd testified that upon entering the

apartment, she noticed trash and clothes “everywhere,” and maggots and many flies in the kitchen.

Floyd testified that someone had changed the locks on Jessica’s door because when she had

attempted to do a recent inspection of the apartment, the Quality Housing key for Jessica’s

apartment would not work.

¶ 21   On cross-examination, Floyd stated that she had notified all tenants of the intent to perform

an inspection of the apartments by taping notices of the inspection to each apartment door. Floyd

                                                 8
testified that the notice was no longer on Jessica’s door, but she was not able to access the

apartment because Jessica did not answer the door, and Quality Housing’s key did not work. Floyd

testified that Jessica had told her that her apartment had been broken into several times. Floyd

stated that she had requested police reports, but Jessica had never provided them. Floyd denied

any knowledge that Jessica had requested repairs to the bathtub prior to May 22, 2020.

¶ 22       Jessica next testified at the adjudicatory hearing. She stated that on May 22, 2020, she was

cleaning the apartment. Trash had been swept up into a pile, and garbage bags containing used

clothing and toys were ready for donation. Other trash bags were full, but she had not taken them

out to the dumpster because when she had done so in the past, people had reported her for leaving

her children in the apartment alone. She stated that the issue with the bathtub was not of recent

origin. The previous handyman had removed the part in question and never returned to replace it.

Moreover, she testified that she had made numerous complaints about the bathtub requiring

repairs.

¶ 23       Jessica also testified about her son’s injuries. She had no idea how he sustained a cigarette

burn but stated that he had been staying with her mother. She also testified that his other bruises

were present after another stay at her mother’s home in Iowa. Jessica testified that there had been

numerous unfounded DCFS complaints about her care of the children. She also testified that her

apartment had been broken into several times, and that the offenders “trashed” her apartment. She

testified that her next-door neighbor was one of the burglars and was caught in the apartment, but

that the police advised that they were not investigating or charging people for home invasions

during the COVID-19 pandemic. Jessica also denied the allegation that her children had been in

an open window of her apartment. She testified that there was one time when the windows were

replaced, but her children were not there at the time.

                                                    9
¶ 24   On cross-examination, Jessica testified that the children had previously been at her

mother’s home because she had signed over custody to her mother. However, when her mother

indicated that she could no longer care for Jessica’s children, they came back to Jessica’s home.

Upon arriving home, she noticed that her son was bruised and had a black eye. The children

returned to her home approximately two weeks before May 22, 2020, when the children were

removed by DCFS. She testified that she smokes cigarettes, but only in her bedroom.

¶ 25   At the conclusion of the hearing, the State withdrew the allegation involving Jessica’s

history of substance abuse. The trial court found that the State had established two of the three

allegations, paragraphs B and C—mother is unable to provide a safe and adequate environment

for the minors in that the home was littered with trash and debris, and cigarette butts were in the

children’s reach; and environment injurious to the welfare of the children in that Alexis’s sibling

had unexplained injuries, including burns and bruising. The trial court set the dispositional hearing

for May 25, 2021.

¶ 26   On May 20, 2021, DCFS filed its dispositional report, which recommended a permanency

goal of return home within 12 months. The most recent service plan was dated May 11, 2021.

DCFS maintained its service recommendations including substance abuse treatment, individual

therapy, parenting education and coaching, and cooperation with the agency. DCFS reported that

Jessica was sporadic with visitation due to a variety of reasons including multiple alleged COVID-

19 infections, failing to confirm her scheduled visit as mandated, alleged spider bites, attendance

at “treatment,” moving to Terre Haute, Indiana, with a boyfriend having no transportation for

visitation, and involvement with a friend who overdosed. In addition to attendance issues, DCFS

noted that Jessica made “empty promises” to the children, tried to speak to the foster support

specialist about case-related matters, and told the children stories about why they were not allowed

                                                 10
to return to her apartment, including that the door was kicked in, the plumbing was not working,

or that she had a friend in the home. Overall, the caseworker indicated that the prognosis for

returning the children home was poor as Jessica continued to significantly minimalize and deny

the risk factors that impacted the safety of the children, and Jessica continued to use “illicit

substances.” DCFS noted that substance abuse and mental health concerns were chronic, and

Jessica was resistant to treatment. DCFS also had ongoing concerns with the home environment

and housing that Jessica would be able to provide for the children. DCFS asked the trial court to

find that Jessica was unfit or unable for reasons other than financial circumstances alone to care

for, protect, train, or discipline the minors or is unwilling to do so.

¶ 27    Jessica’s attorney filed a motion to continue the dispositional hearing on May 20, 2021,

alleging that she was seeking treatment for her “mental health and wellbeing.” On May 25, 2021,

the court held a hearing, and noted that Jessica was in inpatient care at Hour House. 4 The court

continued the dispositional hearing until July 6, 2021.

¶ 28    On July 6, 2021, the trial court called the case for hearing. Jessica’s attorney stated that

Jessica was “in treatment.” The record is not clear who asked for the continuance of the

dispositional hearing, but the trial court continued it to August 3, 2021.

¶ 29    On August 3, 2021, the State informed the trial court that it was not ready to proceed

because the agency employee assigned to this case discontinued employment on July 31, 2021,

and thus no subpoena for the current employee assigned to the file had been issued. Jessica’s

attorney indicated that he had no objection to a continuance but stated that he would like the next

hearing date to be more than one month later because Jessica was having “dual treatment” at

        4
            Hour House is a substance abuse residential treatment facility in Charleston.
                                                      11
Bloomington Meadows Hospital. The trial court continued the dispositional hearing to October 5,

2021.

¶ 30    Prior to the hearing date, on September 22, 2021, Jessica’s attorney filed a motion seeking

a continuance because he had suffered a cardiac event on September 13, 2021, and had surgery,

and was still experiencing fatigue and other symptoms. On October 5, 2021, Jessica was present

in court, but her attorney was not. Another attorney was appointed to represent Jessica in her

attorney’s absence. The trial court continued the dispositional hearing to November 2, 2021.

¶ 31    On October 4, 2021, DCFS filed its dispositional addendum report. The report indicated

that Jessica was in Hour House for substance abuse treatment from May 22, 2021, until May 25,

2021, when she left against medical advice. From June 1, 2021, until September 19, 2021, Jessica

missed most of her scheduled visits with Alexis. On August 11, 2021, the caseworker contacted

Horizon Health to inquire about whether Jessica had presented for drug screens. Horizon Health

stated that the last drug test Jessica had was on January 1, 2021, and she tested positive for

methamphetamine. As time passed, DCFS found that Jessica’s behavior became increasingly

erratic and “explosive,” and thus it was determined that Jessica could not have visitation with her

children until she had three consecutive directly-observed negative drug screens. On September

23, 2021, Jessica contacted her caseworker’s supervisor and requested the assignment of a different

caseworker. When advised that this was not permissible, Jessica informed the supervisor that her

request was because she had completed all services and did not understand why her children were

still in care. Overall, DCFS noted that Jessica “continues to present with significant minimization

and denial surrounding risk factors that impact her children’s safety and has continued to use illicit

substances.”

                                                 12
¶ 32   On October 28, 2021, Jessica, through her attorney, asked the trial court to continue the

November 2, 2021, dispositional hearing because counsel continued to have cardiac-related issues,

and because Jessica had been exposed to COVID-19, although she had not yet received test results

confirming a diagnosis.

¶ 33   On November 2, 2021, Jessica’s substitute appointed attorney was present, but Jessica

failed to appear. Her substitute attorney advised the court that he had no documentation that Jessica

was ill other than that she allegedly texted him a photo taken of her on October 31, 2021, from a

physician’s office. The attorney confirmed he had no medical documentation about her condition

that would support her failure to appear in court. The trial court noted that it had “no record of

positive covid test for mother.” The State objected to a continuance. The court denied the October

28, 2021, written motion for a continuance and proceeded with the dispositional hearing. The court

then adopted recommendations DCFS made in its dispositional report. On November 4, 2021, a

dispositional order was entered by the trial court finding that Jessica was “unfit or unable for

reasons other than financial circumstances alone to care for, protect, train, or discipline the minor

or is unwilling to do so.” The court found that Alexis was neglected and granted guardianship and

custody of Alexis to DCFS.

¶ 34   On December 2, 2021, Jessica, through her attorney Arbogast, filed a motion to vacate the

dispositional order. On February 22, 2022, the trial court granted Jessica’s motion to vacate the

November 4, 2021, dispositional order and set the case for a status hearing on March 29, 2022. On

that date, the court continued the case to May 24, 2022, at which time the dispositional hearing

was scheduled.

¶ 35   On May 24, 2022, Jessica’s attorney filed a motion to continue, alleging an inability to

obtain discovery from the State, his own ongoing health issues, and Jessica’s recent delivery of a

                                                 13
baby. The trial court found that the motion was untimely and denied it. The State called two

witnesses.

¶ 36   Elizabeth Shafer, a former employee of One Hope United, and current employee of Addus,

testified that she was assigned to this case by One Hope United as a foster care case manager. She

was employed in that capacity from September 2019 until July 2021. Shafer stated that she

prepared the dispositional report. Jessica was required to complete services involving substance

abuse, individual therapy, and parenting. She testified that she met with Jessica a couple of times,

but that contacting Jessica via phone calls and/or text messages was difficult because Jessica’s

telephone number frequently changed. Shafer testified that she believed at one point Jessica was

engaged in services related to substance abuse, but that Jessica never completed services during

her tenure on the case. She testified that Jessica’s visitation attendance was sporadic. Shafer stated

that she knew that Jessica entered inpatient substance abuse treatment but checked herself out

against medical advice. In addition, she testified that Jessica refused random drug tests.

¶ 37   The State also called Kelly Dick, then employed as a training specialist for One Hope

United. She previously worked as a case manager at One Hope United from 2019 until January 7,

2022. Dick was assigned to this case from August 2021 until January 7, 2022. As case manager,

Dick reviewed all records to ascertain the service recommendations for Jessica. Dick never had an

in-person meeting with Jessica but spoke to her by telephone. She also testified that Jessica had

several different telephone numbers which made contact difficult. Dick’s supervisor

unsuccessfully attempted to set up child and family team meetings with Jessica, but she refused to

cooperate. At one point, Jessica blocked Dick’s phone number. Dick testified that from August

2021 until January 7, 2022, Jessica engaged in no services and refused all required random drug

                                                 14
tests. On cross-examination, Dick acknowledged that she never visited/inspected Jessica’s

apartment because she “could never get ahold” of her.

¶ 38    At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Jessica had not made reasonable

and substantial progress or efforts toward the return of Alexis. The court then adopted the findings

and recommendations in DCFS’s dispositional report and placed guardianship of Alexis with

DCFS.

¶ 39    On November 21, 2022, DCFS filed its permanency report. As of the date of the report,

Jessica had failed to engage in any services, had not presented for scheduled random drug tests,

and only had sporadic visits with Alexis. Alexis refused to attend two visits in September 2022,

and there had been no visits between Jessica and Alexis since September 29, 2022. DCFS asked

the court to modify the permanency goal from reunification within 12 months to substitute care

pending the court’s determination of whether Jessica’s parental rights should be terminated.

¶ 40    On January 24, 2023, the State filed its motion to terminate Jessica’s parental rights, which

was served upon Jessica and her attorney in court. To support its claim that Jessica was unfit, the

State made three allegations: (1) that she failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest,

concern, or responsibility as to Alexis’s welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020)); (2) that she

failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for Alexis’s removal

within any nine-month period after the child was adjudicated as a neglected minor (id. § 1(m)(i));

and (3) that she failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of Alexis to her within any

nine-month period after the child was adjudicated as neglected (id. § 1(m)(ii)).

¶ 41    The court held a permanency hearing on January 24, 2023. The State called one witness,

and Jessica also testified.

                                                 15
¶ 42   Jordyn Hayes testified that she was previously employed with One Hope United as a case

manager, and through that position she knew Jessica and Alexis. She stated that Jessica needed to

cooperate with the agency, undergo mental health and substance abuse assessments/treatment,

complete parenting classes, submit to weekly drug tests, and participate in visitation with Alexis.

Hayes testified that she communicated these requirements to Jessica by text message at least five

times. She stated that it was the responsibility of Jessica to locate these service providers, instigate

services, and sign releases of information so that One Hope United could communicate with her

providers. Jessica did not engage in any services while Hayes was her case manager. Between May

2022 and November 2022, Hayes requested weekly drug tests. In May 2022, after Jessica gave

birth to another child, she had two drug tests, both of which were negative. After those two tests,

Jessica never complied with the weekly drug testing requirements except for one excused week

because Jessica established proof of having COVID-19.

¶ 43   Jessica testified that she had completed all services except parenting classes. She stated

that she was in a hospital for 2½ weeks, and mental health was part of that hospitalization. She

also stated that she had been in substance abuse treatment. She testified that she signed releases

for all services received and that One Hope United should have those records. She testified that

her most recent pregnancy made compliance with requested drug screens very difficult. Jessica

confirmed that “at the start of her case,” drug tests were positive, but stated that she had recently

had several drug tests and they were all negative. She testified that she had been sober for almost

two years.

¶ 44   At the conclusion of the permanency hearing, the trial court adopted the findings and

recommendations advanced by DCFS. The court found that Jessica had not made reasonable and

substantial efforts or progress toward the return of Alexis to her care. The court changed the

                                                  16
permanency goal to substitute care pending the court’s determination of the State’s petition to

terminate Jessica’s parental rights. The court set the fitness hearing for April 4, 2023.

¶ 45    On April 4, 2023, Jessica’s attorney filed a motion to continue because Jessica had

laryngitis. Jessica did not appear. The court granted the motion and set the fitness hearing for April

25, 2023.

¶ 46    On April 25, 2023, Hour House provided a letter to One Hope United that was filed with

the court. Jessica was reported to have been admitted to the inpatient program on April 11, 2023,

but left against staff advice on the morning of April 25, 2023.

¶ 47    On the date that Jessica was unsuccessfully discharged from Hour House, the court held

the fitness hearing. The State called five former and current One Hope United employees to testify.

Jessica also testified.

¶ 48    Elizabeth Shafer testified that she had been employed by One Hope United since 2019,

except for the period between July 2020 and June 2021, when she was directly employed by DCFS.

She was currently employed as a training specialist, and before July 2020, she had been employed

as a placement worker. She was Jessica’s caseworker for approximately six months. Shafer

testified that during those six months, Jessica was required to engage in mental health, substance

abuse, and parenting services and was required to submit to random drug tests, cooperate with

DCFS, and engage in visitation with Alexis. Her communications with Jessica about the service

plan were conducted in person, by phone, and by text messages. Jessica communicated her

understanding of the service plan objectives with Shafer. Shafer testified that Jessica briefly

engaged with an area mental health provider, but she never received any documentation of

confirmation of treatment. Shafer spoke with that provider, who informed her that Jessica had

engaged in one phone call with an employee, but that there was no follow-up, and no services were

                                                 17
provided. She stated that on two occasions Jessica was in residential substance abuse treatment,

but that both times, she left treatment before services were completed. Otherwise, Shafer testified

that she received no evidence of completion of substance abuse services, and Jessica never told

her that she had completed services. Similarly, Shafer received no verbal or written documentation

that Jessica had participated in parenting education. Regarding random drug tests, Shafer stated

that tests were requested on a weekly basis, but Jessica would never participate. On one occasion,

Jessica presented a document of a drug screen result, and Shafer contacted the provider who

indicated that Jessica had not been drug tested by that provider. Shafer also testified that Jessica

was provided with weekly visitation. On two occasions, Shafer supervised the visits, and testified

that she had no concerns with Jessica’s interactions with Alexis.

¶ 49   Kelly Dick testified that she had been employed by One Hope United as a placement

worker from 2019 to January 2022, and was thereafter employed as a training specialist. Dick

testified that she was Jessica’s placement worker from July 2021 until January 2022. She stated

that Jessica was hard to reach on most days, but she was able to contact her. Dick testified to the

same service plan objectives that Shafer had referenced in her testimony. She believed that Jessica

was also required to maintain clean affordable housing. During the time that Dick was assigned to

Jessica’s case, Jessica completed no services. She confirmed that Jessica had been admitted to

inpatient substance abuse treatment at The Pavilion Behavioral Health System in Champaign (The

Pavilion), but that she left against medical advice. Dick testified that at times when Jessica claimed

to have COVID-19, those claims were false. She completed no services. Jessica claimed to have

completed a parenting program with Family First but Dick stated that this was a community service

program that did not meet DCFS requirements.

                                                 18
¶ 50   Dick testified that Jessica tagged One Hope United in a Facebook social media post, and

listed Dick’s name. In this post, Jessica stated that ALEXIS S. was being sexually molested and

that she had completed all mandated services to have ALEXIS S. returned to her care. As a result

of this post, One Hope United/DCFS required a detailed analysis of the case. Dick followed up by

contacting the providers listed in Jessica’s Facebook post and providing her superiors with

investigative information about what Dick had and/or had not done in Jessica’s case. In addition,

One Hope United attempted to set up a child and family team meeting with Jessica, but she refused.

Overall, Dick testified that Jessica left substance abuse treatment at The Pavilion before she

completed the program and otherwise received no documentation that Jessica had engaged in any

required services. Dick stated that she asked Jessica to submit to a random drug test every week

she served on the case, but that Jessica completed no drug tests. Dick received documentation from

the drug testing provider that Jessica did not show for the tests. She confirmed that Jessica was

allowed weekly visitation with Alexis, but that her participation was “virtually nonexistent.” When

she did attend visits, Jessica’s behavior was described as “kind of inappropriate.” Jessica would

make excuses for her lack of attendance, and Dick followed up with her providers learning that

Jessica was fabricating the excuses. She testified that Jessica only exercised her visitation rights

about once every two months.

¶ 51   On cross-examination, Dick stated that she attempted to meet with Jessica after a court

hearing, but Jessica ran away. Additionally, she gave Dick five different phone numbers, and

would never confirm which number was accurate, but would complain that Dick was “giving” her

number out to strangers because she used all five telephone numbers in a group text to Jessica.

Dick also testified that she confirmed that the uncle who reportedly had molested Jessica was never

near or with Alexis.

                                                19
¶ 52   Jordyn Hayes testified that she was then employed by Children’s Home and Aid as an intact

caseworker but was previously employed as a foster care case manager with One Hope United

from February 2022 through November 2022. Hayes testified that she was familiar with Jessica

and Alexis as she worked on their case between April 2022 and October 2022. During that time

frame, Hayes testified that she had contact with Jessica multiple times each week, primarily

through text messages. Hayes confirmed the same service plan objectives for Jessica and testified

that she notified Jessica multiple times that the services, including parenting classes, were required.

Jessica provided no documentation that she had engaged in any services. She stated that she had

engaged in substance abuse services, but despite requests for releases of information, Hayes never

received a signed release or any documentation that Jessica had received these services. Hayes

stated that Jessica was scheduled for weekly random drug tests except for two excused weeks. On

one of those excused weeks, Jessica claimed to have a contagious illness, and on the other week,

she claimed that she was going to be receiving substance abuse services. Hayes testified that

Jessica completed two drug tests with Occupational Health shortly after she was discharged from

giving birth to another child. Otherwise, she did not participate in the drug tests. Hayes testified

that DCFS policy is to construe any failure to appear for a drug test as a failed drug test. She also

testified that Jessica was offered weekly visitation, and she supervised two of these visits. At one

of the visits, Alexis reported to Hayes that she was uncomfortable with some of the things that

Jessica was saying to her. After some time, Alexis refused to get into the transport vehicle to have

additional visitation opportunities with Jessica. Hayes explained that visitation is never forced

upon the child.

¶ 53   On cross-examination Hayes testified that Alexis began refusing visitation with Jessica in

September 2022, and that Alexis’s stated reason for refusing visitation was because her mother

                                                  20
was lying to her. Hayes confirmed that Jessica asked her for assistance in setting up mental health

and substance abuse services but stated that it was difficult to provide Jessica with guidance

“because Jessica was very combative in the text messages.”

¶ 54   Katie Alexander next testified that she had been employed with One Hope United for

approximately four years as a family support specialist, who facilitates and supervises visitation

between parents and their children. She had worked with Jessica and Alexis since 2020. The State

asked Alexander to testify about the nine-month period between September 4, 2021, and August

4, 2022. During that time frame, Jessica’s visits were “very scarce,” and Alexander testified that

during that specific time there was a six-month period with no visitation exercised by, and/or

communication with, Jessica. Alexander stated that Jessica signed confirmation agreements that

mandated Jessica’s confirmation with the agency the day before each visit. Confirmation was

allowed by any form of communication.

¶ 55   On cross-examination, Alexander acknowledged that Jessica wanted the visits to take place

Paris instead of Marshall. However, Alexander testified that the agency typically holds the visits

in the city where the child attends school to keep the children from having to commute longer

distances. While the agency was not able to accommodate Jessica’s location requests, Alexander

stated that they provided Jessica with gasoline cards and bus passes to facilitate her transportation.

¶ 56   The State also called Janessa Watson, who testified that she was employed by One Hope

United as a caseworker and had been involved with this case since October 2022. She testified that

Jessica still needed to complete services for substance abuse (including random drug tests), mental

health, and parenting. Jessica was also required to cooperate with the agency and to engage in

visitation with Alexis. Watson confirmed that she had informed Jessica of the need to complete

these service tasks but stated that she had not received any documentation that Jessica had done

                                                 21
so. While there were a couple of weeks that Watson opted not to send Jessica to take a drug test

because of weather conditions, and more recently when Jessica went to Hour House for substance

abuse treatment, Watson testified that she otherwise required weekly tests. Jessica completed only

one test in March 2023. 5 In response to all other requests, Jessica made excuses including being

sick “a lot,” and otherwise refusing to take the tests.

¶ 57   Jessica testified next on her own behalf. She testified that visits with Alexis were held in

Marshall, Paris, and Charleston. She testified that she repeatedly requested that the visits be held

in Paris where she lived because of transportation issues, and more recently because of her

pregnancy. She testified that she repeatedly called and texted One Hope United about the visits.

Jessica testified that she had tried to get assistance from One Hope United with her parenting class

service requirement. Regarding mental health services, she testified that she was twice admitted to

a mental health ward at a Terre Haute, Indiana, hospital, and that with both admissions, she

underwent a mental health assessment. She testified that she had repeatedly attempted to obtain

substance abuse treatment. In July 2021, she successfully detoxed at The Pavilion for 10 days, but

was discharged because the facility had no open beds for continued treatment. Most recently, she

went to Hour House for treatment, but left to prepare for this court hearing. She testified that at the

conclusion of the hearing, she would be checking herself back into rehabilitation services at Hour

House. Jessica testified that her communication with One Hope United was sporadic and stated

that she had cell phone issues that limited the minutes she could use with her cell phone plan. She

also testified that due to a spider bite, she repeatedly gets bacterial infections—Methicillin-

resistant Staphylococcus aureus. While her infections are active, she is not allowed to be around

the children. However, she testified that her physician’s notes that she was “released” to be around

       5
           Watson was not asked and did not testify about the results of this drug test.
                                                      22
her children was not specific enough for One Hope United. Jessica also testified that she

telephoned the Human Resources Center of Edgar and Clark Counties (HRC) in Paris to have a

substance abuse assessment. Jessica stated that HRC did not recommend that she engage in any

treatment. She testified that she signed a release to have the information sent to One Hope United.

She also testified that after her son was born in May 2022, she had four successive negative drug

tests.

¶ 58     On cross-examination, Jessica confirmed that her last visit with Alexis was during the fall

of 2022. She also stated that she signed releases at the unnamed Terre Haute, Indiana, hospital so

that One Hope United would receive her mental health assessments. She testified that she informed

her caseworker about this assessment but could not recall which caseworker she had at that time.

Jessica stated that she went to The Pavilion for detox from methamphetamine in July 2021. She

stated that she had been using methamphetamine for six months before she went into detox.

¶ 59     Kelly Dick was recalled by the State and confirmed that she was Jessica’s caseworker in

December 2021. She testified that she received no documentation that Jessica had engaged in

inpatient mental health treatment that month.

¶ 60     At the conclusion of the fitness hearing, the trial court verbally stated “that the State has

met their burden with respect to each of the three allegations regarding [Jessica].” The court then

proceeded with the best interest hearing.

¶ 61     The State called Janessa Watson to testify, who again testified that she was the current

caseworker, and was familiar with the foster parents of Alexis, having met with them once or twice

each month. The household makeup includes the two foster parents, Alexis, her younger brother

Kaiden H., and a foster sibling. Alexis has her own bedroom. Alexis has no health concerns and is

currently enrolled in school. Watson testified that she had witnessed interactions between Alexis

                                                  23
and her foster parents and she had no concerns. The foster parents are employed. They have moved

once since Watson was assigned to the case and have plans to move again to a bigger home so

Kaiden can have his own bedroom. Alexis is loving and open with her foster parents. On cross-

examination, Watson testified that the foster parents were required to undergo a background check,

as well as a licensing process.

¶ 62    Jessica’s attorney called Kelly Dick to testify. Dick testified that she participated in the

background inquiry of the foster parents. She confirmed that there was a battery charge and an

order of protection involving an individual named Sabrina W. 6 The incident was more than 10

years old and was addressed by the agency.

¶ 63    At the conclusion of the best interest hearing, the trial court made its finding that the State

met its burden of proof in establishing that it was in Alexis’s best interest for Jessica’s parental

rights to be terminated.

¶ 64    On May 24, 2023, Jessica filed a motion to reconsider alleging that the adjudicatory hearing

was not conducted within 90 days after the State filed its petition for adjudication of wardship on

May 26, 2020. Jessica argued that the trial court should have dismissed the case without prejudice

on August 24, 2020. She acknowledged that she sought a continuance on September 22, 2020, but

argued that because the case was already past the 90-day requirement, her continuance request was

inconsequential. Ultimately, Alexis was not adjudicated as a ward of the State until April 6, 2021.

Additionally, Jessica contended that the State failed to prove the allegations at the adjudicatory,

fitness, and best interest hearings according to the relevant standards.

¶ 65    On August 1, 2023, after a hearing, the trial denied Jessica’s motion to reconsider.

        6
          The record is unclear whether Sabrina W. is one of the foster parents and/or had been involved in
the battery charge.
                                                   24
¶ 66                                     II. ANALYSIS

¶ 67   Jessica appeals from the trial court’s orders finding that she was an unfit parent and

terminating her parental rights. Before we reach these two orders, we must initially determine if

the adjudicatory order must be vacated without prejudice because it was held past the mandatory

statutory timeframe.

¶ 68                           A. Appeal of Adjudicatory Order

¶ 69   Also, we also find that this court lacks jurisdiction to address this issue as the adjudicatory

order is one step in the process and is not appealable on its own. In re D.R., 354 Ill. App. 3d 468,

473 (2004). The dispositional order that follows the adjudicatory order is the appealable order.

In re M.J., 314 Ill. App. 3d 649, 655 (2000). At the first step, the adjudicatory hearing, the trial

court must determine if the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent. 705 ILCS 405/2-21(1) (West

2020). Placement of the minor is then determined by the subsequent dispositional order. In re D.R.,

354 Ill. App. 3d at 473. The dispositional order is the final and appealable order—not the

adjudicatory order. In re M.J., 314 Ill. App. 3d at 655.

¶ 70   All appeals from final orders entered pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, except

for delinquency orders, are subject to the rules that apply to civil cases. Ill. S. Ct. R. 660(b) (eff.

Oct. 1, 2001). Thus, Jessica was required to file a notice of appeal from the dispositional order

within 30 days after it was entered—within 30 days of May 24, 2022. Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(1) (eff.

July 1, 2017). As Jessica did not timely file her notice of appeal in this case, we do not have

jurisdiction over the issue she raises on appeal directed to the timeliness of the adjudicatory order.

¶ 71                           B. Termination of Parental Rights

¶ 72   The Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2020)) and the Adoption

Act (750 ILCS 50/0.01 et seq. (West 2020)) provide the legal authority for the involuntary

                                                  25
termination of parental rights in Illinois. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 30 (citing In re

J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329, 337 (2010)). Section 2-29(2) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 provides the

procedural basis for the involuntary termination of parental rights. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West

2020). The process mandated involves two hearings. In the first hearing, the State must prove by

clear and convincing evidence that the parent is an “unfit person” as defined by the Adoption

Act. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 30 (citing In re A.J., 269 Ill. App. 3d 824, 828

(1994)); 750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2020). If the trial court finds that the parent is unfit, the case

proceeds to a second hearing where the State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

it is in the child’s best interest that the parent’s rights be terminated. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App

(5th) 220793, ¶ 30 (citing In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329, 337-38 (2010)); 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West

2020).

¶ 73     When a parent appeals the trial court’s findings that a parent is unfit and that terminating

the parental rights is in the child’s best interest, the appellate court must not retry the case but,

instead, must review the trial court’s findings to determine if the findings are against the manifest

weight of the evidence. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 31 (citing In re A.W., 231 Ill.

2d 92, 104 (2008)). The reviewing court gives great deference to the trial court’s finding of

unfitness because the court had the best opportunity to view and evaluate the parties and their

testimony. Id. (citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1052, 1064 (2006)). Therefore, we do not

reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of the witnesses on appeal. Id. (citing In re M.A.,

325 Ill. App. 3d 387, 391 (2001)). “A decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence

if the opposite conclusion is apparent or when findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not

based on the evidence presented.” Id. (citing In re Vanessa K., 2011 IL App (3d) 100545, ¶ 28).

                                                 26
¶ 74                                        C. Fitness

¶ 75    We first review the evidence to determine if the State met its burden of proving, by clear

and convincing evidence, that Jessica was an “unfit person.” The trial court determined that the

State met its burden of proof on the following bases: (1) that Jessica failed to maintain a reasonable

degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to Alexis’s welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West

2020)); (2) that Jessica failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the

basis for Alexis’s removal during any nine-month period after the adjudication of neglect (id.

§ 1(D)(m)(i)); and (3) that Jessica failed to make reasonable progress toward Alexis’s return within

any nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)).

¶ 76             1. Reasonable Degree of Interest, Concern, or Responsibility

¶ 77    The language used by our legislature in section 1(D)(b) of the Adoption Act is in the

disjunctive, meaning that any one of the three separate segments—interest or concern or

responsibility—“may be considered by itself as a basis for unfitness.” In re B’yata I., 2014 IL App

(2d) 130558-B, ¶ 31 (citing 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2012); In re Richard H., 376 Ill. App. 3d

162, 166 (2007)). To determine if a parent has shown a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or

responsibility for a minor’s welfare, the court “considers the parent’s efforts to visit and maintain

contact with the child as well as other indicia, such as inquiries into the child’s welfare.” Id. (citing

In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1064). The court can also consider evidence that the parent

completed her or her service plan as establishing the parent’s interest, concern, or responsibility.

Id. (citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1065). A parent’s effort is more important than a

parent’s success with the service plan objectives. Id. (citing In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill. 2d 255,

279 (1990)). The court must “examine the parent’s conduct concerning the child in the context of

the circumstances in which that conduct occurred.” Id. (citing In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill. 2d

                                                   27
at 278). Circumstances of the parent’s difficulties in completion of plan objectives and/or in

attending visitation, including transportation issues and poverty, are relevant in assessing the

reasonable degree of a parent’s interest, concern, or responsibility for the minor’s welfare. Id.

(citing In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill. 2d at 278-79). “We are mindful, however, that a parent is

not fit merely because he or she has demonstrated some interest or affection toward the child.” Id.

(citing In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d 239, 259 (2004)). Instead, the court must objectively assess

whether the interest, concern, or responsibility is reasonable. Id. (citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill.

App. 3d at 1064).

¶ 78      Here, the trial court concluded that Jessica failed to show interest, concern, and/or

responsibility toward Alexis’s return. We turn to the service plan objectives and visitation to assist

in evaluating whether the trial court’s conclusion was in error. In re Richard H., 376 Ill. App. 3d

at 166.

¶ 79      Jessica never completed any of her service plan objectives: substance abuse treatment,

individual mental health therapy, and parenting classes and coaching. She was noncompliant with

mandated weekly drug tests and also inconsistent with visitation.

¶ 80      Jessica started the detox process from methamphetamines more than once and failed to

complete this task. In addition, throughout this case, Jessica was required to submit to weekly drug

testing. With exceptions for illnesses and detoxing at a substance abuse treatment facility, Jessica

missed virtually all required tests. From testimony at the hearing, DCFS construes a missed test as

a failed test. We acknowledge that shortly after Jessica gave birth to a child, Kaiden H., in May

2022, there were a few negative tests, but she failed to participate in weekly drug tests thereafter.

Overall, Jessica was noncompliant with substance abuse services and mandated testing.

                                                 28
¶ 81    In addition, Jessica never initiated mental health therapy. While she apparently checked

herself into a mental health unit at a hospital and claims that she underwent “assessments” at that

hospital, One Hope United never received them.

¶ 82    Jessica completed a community-based parenting program but did not confirm that the

program would satisfy her service plan objective with One Hope United, and the program Jessica

attended was not the type required by DCFS. In addition, Jessica did not receive parenting

coaching as required. Finally, Jessica was inconsistent with supervised visitation, and toward the

end of this case, there were no visits because Alexis refused them.

¶ 83    We must give great deference to the trial court’s finding of unfitness as the court was able

to evaluate the demeanor and testimony of Jessica and the five current and former One Hope

United employees. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 31 (citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill.

App. 3d at 1064). Overall, we agree with the trial court’s findings that the evidence clearly

established that Jessica failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, and/or

responsibility for Alexis. Jessica’s failure to engage or complete the required service plan

objectives demonstrated her lack of interest, concern, or responsibility for Alexis. In re Daphnie

E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1065. We find that the trial court’s finding is not contrary to the manifest

weight of the evidence. In re M.I., 2016 IL 120232, ¶ 21; In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793,

¶ 31 (citing In re A.W., 231 Ill. 2d at 104).

¶ 84                 2. Reasonable Effort Within Any Nine-Month Period

¶ 85    “Reasonable effort” is determined by a subjective standard that refers to the amount of

effort which is reasonable for that parent. In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1066-67. The court

must determine whether the parent has made committed and diligent efforts toward correcting the

conditions that led to the removal of the minor from the home. In re L.J.S., 2018 IL App (3d)

                                                29
180218, ¶ 24. “A parent’s deficiencies collateral to the conditions that were the basis for the

removal of the children are not relevant to the reasonable efforts analysis.” In re D.F., 332 Ill. App.

3d 112, 125 (2002).

¶ 86   Alexis was removed from Jessica’s care because of an environment that was potentially

injurious to her health. Jessica’s apartment was extremely dirty and contaminated with insects.

Cigarette butts were accessible to the children. There had also been reports that Jessica allowed

Alexis to be outside of the apartment on an unsupervised basis. Additionally, Alexis’s younger

brother had unexplained burns, bruises, a leg fracture, and a diagnosis of failure to thrive. Jessica

also abused methamphetamine. She completed no services and remained combative with One

Hope United staff throughout the duration of this case. Jessica did not engage in any service plan

objectives, and thus did not make “a committed and diligent effort” to correct the underlying

conditions. In re L.J.S., 2018 IL App (3d) 180218, ¶ 24. We find that the trial court’s order finding

that Jessica failed to show a reasonable effort toward correcting these conditions is not contrary to

the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 31 (citing In re

Vanessa K., 2011 IL App (3d) 100545, ¶ 28).

¶ 87                  3. Reasonable Progress Within a Nine-Month Period

¶ 88   The term “reasonable progress” requires an objective determination regarding the amount

of progress based upon the conditions existing at the time the minor child’s custody was removed

from the parent. Id. ¶ 47 (citing In re D.T., 2017 IL App (3d) 170120, ¶ 17).

           “ ‘The benchmark for measuring a parent’s reasonable progress under section 1(D)(m)

           of the Adoption Act encompasses the parent’s compliance with the service plans and

           court’s directives in light of the condition that gave rise to the removal of the child and

                                                  30
           other conditions which later become known that would prevent the court from returning

           custody of the child to the parent.’ ” Id. (In re D.T., 2017 IL App (3d) 170120, ¶ 17).

“A parent makes reasonable progress when the trial court can find that the progress ‘is sufficiently

demonstrable and of such a quality’ that the trial court may soon be able to order the return of the

minor to the parent’s custody.” Id. (In re D.T., 2017 IL App (3d) 170120, ¶ 17).

¶ 89   Here, the trial court found that Jessica failed to make reasonable progress during any nine-

month period following the court’s adjudication of neglect. During the three years that Jessica’s

DCFS case was open, she failed to complete her substance abuse, mental health, and parenting

service plan objectives. We agree with the trial court’s finding that Jessica objectively failed to

make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of Alexis

during any nine-month period. We conclude that the trial court’s order finding that Jessica was an

unfit parent is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. ¶ 30 (citing In re A.J., 269

Ill. App. 3d at 828).

¶ 90                                     D. Best Interest

¶ 91   Termination of a parent’s rights is a difficult and final step. In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill.

2d at 274-75. Parents maintain the important right to raise their own children. Id. However, when

a parent has been declared “unfit,” “the parent’s rights must yield to the child’s best interest.” In re

Tashika F., 333 Ill. App. 3d 165, 170 (2002); In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329, 337-38 (2010). The

interests of the parent and the child remain concurrent “to the extent that they both ‘share a vital

interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship’ ” until the court declares

that the parent is unfit. In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 363 (2004) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455

U.S. 745, 760-61 (1982)).

                                                  31
¶ 92   At the best interest hearing, the State must establish proof that termination of a parent’s

rights is in the child’s best interest by a preponderance of the evidence. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2)

(West 2020); In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 366 (2004). We review the trial court’s best-interest

decision with the manifest weight of the evidence standard. In re Jay. H., 395 Ill. App. 3d 1063,

1071 (2009); In re S.J., 368 Ill. App. 3d 749, 755 (2006). “A best-interest determination is against

the manifest weight of the evidence only if the facts clearly demonstrate that the court should have

reached the opposite result.” In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1072. On appeal from an order

terminating a parent’s rights, the reviewing court gives great deference to the trial court’s decision

because the trial court was in a much better position to see the witnesses and judge their credibility.

In re K.B., 314 Ill. App. 3d 739, 748 (2000).

¶ 93   “[A]t 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

at 364. The trial court must analyze several factors within “the context of the child’s age and

developmental needs” when considering if termination of parental rights serves a child’s best

interest. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2020). Those factors include:

               “(a) the physical safety and welfare of the child, including food, shelter, health, and

           clothing;

               (b) the development of the child’s identity;

               (c) the child’s background and ties, including familial, cultural, and religious;

               (d) the child’s sense of attachments, including:

                       (i) where the child actually feels love, attachment, and a sense of being

               valued (as opposed to where adults believe the child should feel such love,

               attachment, and a sense of being valued);

                                                  32
                      (ii) the child’s sense of security;

                      (iii) the child’s sense of familiarity;

                      (iv) continuity of affection for the child;

                      (v) the least disruptive placement alternative for the child;

               (e) the child’s wishes and long-term goals;

               (f) the child’s community ties, including church, school, and friends;

               (g) the child’s need for permanence which includes the child’s need for stability

           and continuity of relationships with parent figures and with siblings and other relatives;

               (h) the uniqueness of every family and child;

               (i) the risks attendant to entering and being in substitute care; and

               (j) the preferences of the persons available to care for the child.” Id.

The trial court is not required to make an explicit finding on each of the best interest factors. In re

Ca. B., 2019 IL App (1st) 181024, ¶ 33 (citing In re Tajannah O., 2014 IL App (1st) 133119, ¶ 19);

In re Custody of G.L., 2017 IL App (1st) 163171, ¶ 43 (citing In re Marriage of Diehl, 221 Ill.

App. 3d 410, 424 (1991)). Another factor the trial court may consider is the likelihood of adoption.

In re Tashika F., 333 Ill. App. 3d at 170.

¶ 94   During the best interest hearing, One Hope United caseworker Janessa Watson testified

that Alexis had no health concerns and was enrolled in school. She described interactions between

Alexis and her foster parents and stated that she had no concerns with Alexis in this foster parent

setting. Alexis had her own bedroom, and was currently placed with her infant biological half-

brother, Kaiden H., and another child. Alexis’s relationship with her foster parents was reported

as loving and open.

                                                  33
¶ 95    Here, the record clearly establishes that termination of Jessica’s parental rights was the

appropriate outcome for Alexis under all the circumstances. We conclude that the trial court’s

decision to terminate Jessica’s parental rights was not contrary to the manifest weight of the

evidence. In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d 476, 498-99 (2002).

¶ 96                                  III. CONCLUSION

¶ 97    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgments of the circuit court of Edgar County

finding that Jessica was an unfit parent, and that the best interest of Alexis required the termination

of her parental rights.

¶ 98    Affirmed.

                                                  34