Court Opinion

ID: 9394283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 21:03:16.669517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:58.496642
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (5th) 220820-U
             NOTICE
                                                                                        NOTICE
 Decision filed 05/12/23. The
                                                                             This order was filed under
 text of this decision may be       NOS. 5-22-0820, 5-22-0821 cons.
                                                                             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 MIKAYLA M. and SHYLA D., Minors     )     Appeal from the
                                          )     Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois,     )     Coles County.
                                          )
       Petitioner-Appellee,               )
                                          )
v.                                        )     Nos. 21-JA-29, 21-JA-30
                                          )
Shannon D.,                               )     Honorable
                                          )     Jonathan T. Braden,
       Respondent-Appellant).             )     Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

         JUSTICE VAUGHAN delivered the judgment of the court.
         Justices Welch and McHaney concurred in the judgment.

                                             ORDER

¶1       Held: The circuit court’s finding of unfitness is reversed where neither respondent’s
               service plan nor the agency’s dispositional report was ever filed with the court,
               the court’s dispositional order failed to set forth respondent’s services, the first
               filing of respondent’s required services was six months into the nine-month
               period utilized by the State to claim unfitness, and the circuit court’s findings
               regarding respondent’s reasonable progress and reasonable efforts were against
               the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶2       The respondent, Shannon D., appeals the judgment of the Coles County circuit court

finding her unfit pursuant to sections 1(D)(m)(i) and 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS

50/1(D)(m)(i), (ii) (West 2020)). She further appeals the circuit court’s order that found it was in

the best interest of the minor children to terminate her parental rights. On appeal, she argues the

                                                  1
circuit court’s findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We agree and, for the

following reasons, reverse the circuit court’s findings and orders.

¶3                                   I. BACKGROUND

¶4     Shannon is the biological mother of Shyla D. (born November 25, 2006) and Mikayla M.

(born March 27, 2019). On May 11, 2021, Mikayla was seen near the road and the Department of

Children and Family Services (DCFS) was called. The caller stated they picked up Mikayla,

walked to the nearest house, and were told the child did not reside there but to try the neighbor’s

house. A male child, who appeared to be approximately 11 years old, said “there you are” and took

the child from the people in the car. DCFS went to Shannon’s house to investigate the incident.

Shannon told them she fell asleep watching a movie and Mikayla was only outside for about five

minutes. She advised the agency that she was a prior heroin addict. The agency required Shannon

to perform an oral drug test which revealed positive results for methamphetamine, amphetamine,

and THC.

¶5     On May 17, 2021, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship for both children

alleging neglect in that the minors were not receiving proper or necessary support (705 ILCS

405/2-3(1)(a) (West 2020)) and were in an environment injurious to the minors’ welfare (id. § 2-

3(1)(b)), due to Shannon’s abuse of illegal substances while in a caretaker role and failure to

adequately supervise the children. Shannon appeared at the shelter care hearing and admitted

neglect. The court found probable cause of neglect. A parent-child visitation plan was also filed

on May 17, 2021, which provided Shannon one visitation period a month. Shannon was required

to provide 24-hour notice of any cancellation or rescheduled arrangement. The plan set the dates,

times, and locations as “TBA.”

                                                 2
¶6     The adjudicatory hearing was held on June 11, 2021. Shannon provided a partial admission

that conceded she abused an illegal substance. The court accepted the admission and set the

dispositional hearing for July 9, 2021.

¶7     On June 29, 2021, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) submitted a report stating

Shyla had a very strong bond with her mother and did not like her biological father. Shyla stated

that her father exposed himself to her and made inappropriate comments. She was mentally in a

“bad spot” and received counseling prior to moving to Illinois. Shyla and Mikayla were placed

with fictive kin. Mikayla had an abrasion between her eyes from jumping off a swing. She did not

say any clear words but did make gestures to make her needs known and was able to follow simple

directions. The report indicated Shannon had weekly one-hour supervised visits with the children

that went well and stated Shannon had “an emotional bond with her children.” The report

recommendations stated Shannon should “cooperate and communicate with One Hope United and

engage in services such as mental health counseling, substance abuse treatment and domestic

violence treatment to correct the conditions that brought her children into care.” On July 8, 2021,

CASA was appointed as guardian ad litem for the children.

¶8     The dispositional hearing was held on July 9, 2021. Shannon was present. The State asked

the court to adopt the findings in the One Hope United 1 (OHU) dispositional report; however, the

court stated it only had the CASA report and was advised the dispositional report was emailed

directly to the trial judge.2 The service plan recommendations found therein were not read into the

record. The court stated it would enter an order consistent with the recommendations contained in

       1
           DCFS contracted with OHU for this case.
       2
           The record contains no copy of the OHU dispositional report.
                                                     3
the dispositional report; however, the circuit court’s order only referenced the report. The order

did not list any of Shannon’s required services or include a copy of the OHU dispositional report.

¶9     On January 7, 2022, OHU and CASA’s separate permanency reports were filed with the

court. Information from those reports revealed that Shannon was receiving Social Security

Insurance (SSI) but was seeking employment. The author of the OHU report, Tessa Cochrane,

noted that she only recently obtained the case. She stated the record was unclear whether Shannon

had been assessed and the previous caseworker had no information either. Shannon’s listed

services included: substance abuse assessment and treatment, drug screens, mental health,

parenting education, and visitation. The report stated, “At this time, this worker cannot confirm or

deny that the assessment was completed or that [Shannon] is engaged in any substance use

services.” The report indicated that the agency had no signed consents, so verification of

information was not available. Shannon’s drug testing revealed a failure to appear on July 8, 2021,

and November 24, 2021. Testing on October 27, 2021, and December 6, 2021, was positive for

amphetamine, methamphetamine, and THC. The report stated that Shannon was not engaged in

mental health counseling because she was dropped due to nonattendance. She completed her

parenting classes in November 2021. Her supervised visitation continued to go well. However, she

needed to engage in substance abuse and attend mental health counseling. Ms. Cochrane requested

a permanency hearing in three months, stating she was “very recently assigned this case and would

like further time to gather information on parent’s progress or lack thereof as well as further

information on this case in general.” The recommendations included a return home in 12 months

goal and requested findings that included, inter alia, Shannon had not made reasonable and

substantial efforts towards the return of the children.

                                                  4
¶ 10   The reports further indicated that the children were moved into traditional foster care in

November 2021 after Shyla missed 19 of 35 school days due to sleeping on a couch with two

children under the age of three sleeping next to her on the floor. The report stated that Shyla alleged

molestation by her biological father. The father advised the agency that a return home to him was

not an option. Shyla originally attended Cumberland High School but was transferred to Bridges,

an alternative school, after behavior and vaping incidents. She informed a teacher at Bridges that

she “hates foster care[,] and her life is terrible.” CASA stated that “Shyla is struggling with being

in foster care and wanting to return to her mother” but classified the mother-daughter relationship

as “toxic.” Shyla was on a waiting list for counseling but was taking antidepressant medication.

Mikayla was doing well. She was very active and had to be monitored closely because she was a

climber and tended to want to escape from the indoors. She presented to the new foster family

needing to be treated for head lice and exhibiting sexual behaviors and profane language.

¶ 11   The permanency hearing was held on March 18, 2022. Shannon’s counsel agreed with the

recommendation of return home for the suggested goal and the findings regarding Shannon’s

efforts and progress. The court entered an order adopting the recommendations contained in the

permanency report and set the case for hearing in three months.

¶ 12   On June 13, 2022, CASA and OHU filed their permanency reports. Shannon remained

unemployed but had suitable housing. She completed a substance abuse assessment and started

treatment but was unsuccessfully discharged due to a lack of attendance on May 10, 2022. Shannon

told OHU that she was in treatment at Life Links, but that information was not confirmed.

Shannon’s drug testing revealed THC and amphetamines, but the worker stated it was likely the

latter finding was from Shannon’s ADHD prescription. The OHU report listed Shannon’s services

as “parenting classes, substance abuse assessment and treatment, mental health assessment and

                                                  5
treatment, cooperate and communicate with the agency, get suitable housing, and have a legal

source of income.” The report stated Shannon completed the parenting classes, was cooperative

and communicative, and had suitable housing.

¶ 13   The children were placed with a new foster family on April 28, 2022, after Shyla ran away

from the prior foster family home. The prior foster family sent a picture of a positive at-home drug

test administered on Shyla. Shyla was now in counseling and was prescribed Zoloft. Mikayla

continued to present with intermittent sexual behavior and profane language which the prior foster

family stated mostly occurred after visits with Shannon. The reports further noted that Mikayla

liked to escape from the house, so the foster parents installed bells on the doors to alert them and

keep her safe. The CASA report recommended Shannon cooperate with OHU, complete services,

and correct the conditions that brought the children into care or risk CASA requesting a goal

change to substitute care and termination of her parental rights at the next hearing. CASA requested

the next permanency hearing be set in three months. OHU also recommended a setting for the next

permanency hearing in three months and stated, “if services are not satisfactory at that time, the

case should proceed to legal screen.”

¶ 14   The case proceeded to a permanency hearing on June 17, 2022. None of the parties objected

to the permanency recommendations. The court advised Shannon that if she were not making

substantial effort and progress at that time, it was likely the case would proceed to legal screening

by DCFS to determine if termination of her parental rights should occur. The court admonished

Shannon that she was “running out of time.” Shannon acknowledged the court’s statement. The

order found Shannon made reasonable efforts toward returning the children home but had not made

reasonable and substantial progress. The court scheduled the next hearing for September 23, 2022.

                                                 6
¶ 15   On September 12, 2022, OHU filed a permanency report stating Shannon was evicted from

her residence and was staying with a friend in Neoga, Illinois. Shannon advised the caseworker

she was employed but the caseworker had not confirmed the employment. Shannon was reassessed

for substance abuse counseling on August 11, 2022, but failed to show for the in-person assessment

and medical screen on August 22, 2022. Her alleged mental health treatment at Life Links had not

been confirmed. She was scheduled for random drug testing on six occasions but only completed

testing on one date. That test was positive for amphetamines due to her ADHD medication. The

CASA report indicated the children were moved from the second foster family and placed with

fictive kin on September 11, 2022. The report indicated that Shyla was taken to the emergency

room for mental health trouble after she told the foster parent that she felt her only option was

suicide or at least hurting herself so her mother would stop blaming her. She was transferred to

Lincoln Prairie and released on July 13, 2022. The CASA report also indicated that the prior foster

parent stated Shyla broke every house rule including drinking a case of alcohol in June, smoking

illegal substances in July, and sneaking vapes. They stated she refused to do chores, was frequently

irritable with Mikayla, was verbally abusive to the other foster children, and would threaten the

children and then laugh. The foster parent stated the children were afraid. Shyla was not engaged

in mental health services and stated she did not want to return to her mother but wanted to keep a

relationship with her. Mikayla continued to present with intermittent sexual behaviors and profane

language. She was lagging in education and did not know colors, numbers, or letters. CASA did

not know if Mikayla was currently in preschool or therapy. The foster family sent a communication

to CASA stating, “Due to the deteriorating situation and lack of support from the caseworker, we

have sent a letter discontinuing care as of September 3. Shannon knows where we live and both

Shannon and Shyla are acting very neurotic at times now and we no longer feel comfortable.”

                                                 7
Recommendations for Shyla included, inter alia, reengaging in mental health services, a referral

for a psychological or psychiatric evaluation, and an evaluation of the efficacy of her medication.

¶ 16    The permanency hearing was held on September 23, 2022. The State advised the court that

it filed a motion for termination of parental rights earlier in the day. The petition alleged that

Shannon failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the

minors’ welfare pursuant to section 1(D)(b) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West

2020)), failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis of the

children’s removal during the period from December 21, 2021, through September 21, 2022,

pursuant to section 1(D)(m)(i) of the Adoption Act (id. § 1(D)(m)(i)), and failed to make

reasonable progress toward the return of the children during the same period pursuant to section

1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)). The petition requested a finding of unfitness

and the termination of Shannon’s parental rights. The court advised Shannon of the petition and

the allegations of unfitness. Shannon’s counsel denied the allegations and requested a hearing. The

matter was set for hearing on November 10, 2022.

¶ 17    On November 10, 2022, OHU filed a termination hearing report indicating that Shannon

was still looking for a place to live and her employment at MARS was verified. She was scheduled

for five random drug screens and attended one, but the test was unable to be completed due to a

facility malfunction. Most of the three-hour visits did not last the entire time. The report stated that

Shyla and Mikayla were moved to a different foster home on October 24, 2022. Shyla was now in

Charleston High School which was bigger than she was used to and posed some obstacles. She

was doing very well in school when she was in attendance. She was struggling with her mental

health, and due to consents, it was a struggle to get her proper medication. Mikayla was in Head

                                                   8
Start and was also in play therapy due to her behaviors. She was also referred to Sexual Assault

Counseling and Information Services (SACIS) due to sexualized behaviors.

¶ 18   The CASA report indicated that Shyla had her own room at the new foster home but had a

hard time waking up and missed several days of school. A student at the school threatened to fight

her. She was not currently engaging in mental health counseling or taking her prescribed

medications because the caseworker was struggling with the insurance company about consent.

Shyla stated that she did not want to return home to her mother but wanted to keep a relationship

with her. Visitation was inconsistent due to Shannon’s mandatory overtime. Shyla stated she no

longer wished to attend visitation. Mikayla had trouble falling asleep and took melatonin at night.

She struggled with disruptive behavior at Head Start and the foster parents were often called to

retrieve her. CASA recommended a goal change to substitute care pending determination of

parental rights.

¶ 19   The State’s motion to terminate proceeded to hearing on November 23, 2022. The State

procured testimony from Tessa Cochrane, a caseworker at OHU, who testified that she was

assigned to the case on January 5, 2022. She reviewed the notes of the prior caseworkers when she

took over the case. She stated no integrated assessment was ever performed on Shannon. Ms.

Cochrane had no idea how the service plan was developed for the case since no integrated

assessment was performed. She stated the goals were rated as unsatisfactory when she was given

the case, but she was unsure how the goals were set without the integrated assessment. She testified

that she never reviewed the service plan goals with Shannon and had no contact with her during

the two months she was on the case. She attempted to call Shannon multiple times but eventually

determined she was using an incorrect telephone number. She also tried to reach Shannon on a

different number but could not recall if that number had voicemail. Ms. Cochrane did make an

                                                 9
unannounced visit to the house and left a note for Shannon but could not recall the address of the

house. She believed the visit occurred in either late February or early March 2022. After two

months, she handed the case off to Lindsey Spitz. The only document Ms. Cochrane received was

a parenting completion document. She had no evidence that Shannon was making reasonable

efforts towards the goals during the two months she was involved with the case. On cross-

examination, Ms. Cochrane confirmed the integrated assessment was never done and stated it was

usually performed in the first 45 days of the case. She did not know why it was not completed or

if Shannon was ever asked to participate in an integrated assessment.

¶ 20    The State next called Lindsey Spitz, an OHU caseworker, who took the case from Ms.

Cochrane in late February 2022. When she took the case from Ms. Cochrane, they discussed the

service plan, where the kids were placed, and tried to go to Shannon’s house on February 28, 2022.

She stated the information indicated that not many services were completed. The only service

completed was the parenting class. Ms. Spitz stated that Shannon was sent a letter by mail to the

house in Mattoon. She initially stated it was sent after the attempted visit but later stated it was

sent before the visit.

¶ 21    Ms. Spitz stated that Shannon eventually contacted and provided her with a telephone

number on March 11, 2022. She testified that she continued to talk to Shannon in March 2022,

mostly getting to know her. In April 2022, they continued to converse and discussed the different

services, specifically the drug screens. Ms. Spitz testified that Shannon came into the office on

March 17, 2022, received her service plan, and signed it. At that time, she advised Shannon of her

obligations which included: parenting classes, substance abuse assessment and any subsequent

treatment, and mental health assessment and recommended treatment. Shannon was to engage with

Central East Alcoholism and Drug Council (CEAD). Ms. Spitz could not recall if Shannon

                                                10
provided any proof that she had engaged and was not certain if she asked Shannon why she had

not completed anything. She stated that she advised Shannon of the services and nothing else was

mentioned, stating the purpose of the March 17, 2022, meeting “was to have Shannon sign the

service plan.”

¶ 22   Ms. Spitz testified that her later communications with Shannon involved providing a

reference to HOPE of East Central Illinois for personal matters and providing her with information

for housing from the Department of Human Services. She stated that by the time she found a grant

to help Shannon with her rent, Shannon had already been evicted.

¶ 23   Ms. Spitz stated that while she was the caseworker, Shannon never had stable housing, but

she did become employed at the end of May 2022 at Bimbo Bakeries. She believed Shannon was

evicted in either April or May 2022. Shannon mentioned getting an apartment in Sullivan but

eventually moved in with a friend in Neoga. She stated that Shannon enrolled in CEAD for

substance abuse evaluation and treatment but was discharged for lack of attendance in May 2022.

Since then, Shannon reengaged and was wondering how to reenroll. She had an appointment on

November 2, 2022, with another appointment scheduled for November 10, 2022.

¶ 24   Ms. Spitz confirmed Shannon did not successfully complete substance abuse treatment.

She stated that a substance abuse assessment was also scheduled in August, but Shannon did not

attend. Ms. Spitz testified that she spoke with Life Links, and they confirmed Shannon was a

patient there. She stated they did not get into “the extent of that,” but Shannon was seeing a

counselor at that facility. Ms. Spitz confirmed that she had a signed release from Shannon for that

facility, but she was not provided with any other documentation or clarification regarding

Shannon’s treatment. She stated that Shannon made reasonable efforts toward the mental health

goal by attending counseling and stated that she was satisfactory for that goal, but Shannon did not

                                                11
make reasonable effort or substantial progress toward obtaining an evaluation and treatment for

substance abuse. She stated Shannon’s drug screen attendance was haphazard. From March 2022

to November 2022, she missed seven tests and attended five. The five tests attended were positive

for THC and amphetamine, but Ms. Spitz explained that Shannon’s prescription medication could

cause the positive test for amphetamine. The most recent testing was scheduled a week prior to the

hearing. Shannon could not attend so the testing was performed at her workplace. She stated that

Shannon was now receiving testing at Help at Home in Charleston.

¶ 25   Ms. Spitz testified that the only remaining service was visitation and Shannon’s overall

cooperation with the agency. She stated Shannon had regular visits. After the integrated assessment

was completed, she was given eight hours of visitation which was to be supervised by the foster

parents, but the foster parents were not comfortable with the arrangement, so Shannon’s time was

reduced to three hours with agency supervision. Ms. Spitz had no information regarding the foster

parent visitation because no notes were taken. Once the visitation became supervised by the

agency, Shannon failed to confirm prior to the visits, so there were scheduling issues. She stated

there was no visitation by Shannon from February 2022 to May 2022. From May 2022 to

November 2022, there were less than 10 visits for the weekly three-hour visits. Most of the time,

this was due to Shannon failing to call and confirm the day before. When she observed the visits,

the caseworker stated, “For the most part, I would say that it goes well.” Many visits were cut short

due to the location not necessarily working out because the girls had vastly different interests due

to the differences in their ages. Ms. Spitz described her communication with Shannon as sporadic

but when they did communicate Shannon was very informative, would let her know what was

going on, and would talk with her about the kids. Aside from the service plan, Ms. Spitz had no

other concerns that might prevent the children from returning home.

                                                 12
¶ 26   On cross-examination, Ms. Spitz stated that an integrated assessment was completed before

she was the caseworker. She did not have the date it was completed and stated it was in the

computer system. As to substance abuse, Ms. Spitz stated that Shannon advised her that she was

reaching out to ABBCON Counseling Corporation for substance abuse treatment but to her

knowledge it was unsuccessful because Shannon reenrolled at CEAD on November 3, 2022. As

to the positive tests, Ms. Spitz stated that all were positive for THC and two also had amphetamine.

She was aware that Shannon had medical treatment but did not ask for releases to obtain those

records. As to visitation, Ms. Spitz explained that one visitation was at a library; there was not

much for Shyla to do, and Mikayla was rambunctious. She stated the supervisor’s notes indicated

that Shannon spent time with both girls during the visits and demonstrated that she cared about

them. Thereafter, the State rested.

¶ 27   The defense called Shannon to testify. She was currently renting a room in Mattoon and

had been doing so for two months. She did not consider it a permanent residence. She stated she

was employed at MARS Pet Care and had been working there since July 2022. She was working

full time at that job and was also attending online classes at Post University, which she started in

August 2022. She was taking business management classes.

¶ 28   Shannon testified that she had her own residence until she was evicted in July 2022. She

then moved into her car for about a month. She was in contact with Ms. Spitz during that time and

begged her for assistance but received no response for a month and a half. Shannon stated that she

attempted to get started with substance abuse treatment at ABBCON counseling after the last court

date. She was currently engaged in CEAD. Her next appointment was December 10, 2022. She

stated she completed the substance abuse assessment three times. Her current recommendation

was for group and individual counseling. She continued to work with CEAD until she could get

                                                13
into ABBCON. She explained that she could not get into ABBCON because the facility could not

pull her name up in the insurance bank. She tried for weeks to get through to the insurance

company but then went back to CEAD because she wanted her children to come home.

¶ 29   Shannon testified that she never participated in the integrated assessment and was never

asked to participate in one. She stated she was doing her mental health counseling at Life Links

and her counselor’s name was Tammy. She had meetings every other week. During her homeless

period, she would participate in counseling by phone in her car. Her sessions were supposed to be

an hour, but they usually lasted two hours. She also received mental health treatment at Life Links

with Dr. Rowjee, who prescribed her medication. She was on two mood stabilizing anxiety pills

and Adderall. She stated she was compliant with her medications.

¶ 30   With regard to visitation, Shannon agreed there were problems. Shannon testified that she

tried to make the kids comfortable and happy during the visits and she suffered not seeing the

children for as long as possible but stated the children came first. If they had to leave, they had to

leave. She stated that she stopped one of the visits because Mikayla was running in the street and

DCFS was chasing her down the road. “She was three years old, so we had to stop the visit. I didn’t

want to. I wanted to see my kids.” That was the same visit that Ms. Spitz attended. At another visit,

Shyla had an anxiety attack at the library, so that visit was stopped too. She stated she did have

video visits, in addition to the in-person visits. The video visits with Mikayla were supervised, but

the video visits with Shyla were not.

¶ 31   Shannon explained that it was not her fault that she missed the drug testing stating she

“never refused to get a test.” She stated that she tried methamphetamine when the girls were taken

away and went off the deep end but got sober three months later. She had been sober ever since.

She admitted to smoking THC and stated it did not interfere with her work. She stated that her

                                                 14
attendance was not good at work when she was sleeping in her car, but the company worked with

her because they knew she was homeless. She also stated that her telephone was not always in

service because she could not afford it.

¶ 32   Shannon testified that the only caseworker who helped her was Rami, whom she had at the

beginning. Shannon stated that she responded to Ms. Cochrane’s note, but by that time, Ms.

Cochrane was already off the case. Shannon stated that her only face-to-face meeting with Ms.

Spitz was when she went to the office and begged her for the service plan on March 17, 2022. The

only other time she saw her was during one visit with the children. Most of her communication

with Ms. Spitz was via text message. She only called Ms. Spitz once and that was following Shyla’s

hospitalization in July 2022. Ms. Spitz did not answer or respond to her call.

¶ 33   On cross-examination, Shannon explained that Shyla did not like to go to visitation because

Mikayla would act up. Every visit was disrupted because Shyla did not want to be there because

the baby was annoying her. She wanted to be with her friends. Shannon stated that she was allowed

to video visit with the kids every night when they went to bed. Shyla did not like to attend those,

so they were mostly with Mikayla. Shannon and Shyla would video visit every day. She explained

that the issue was just that Shyla did not like to attend with Mikayla. Shannon was also asked for

more specificity about her current living arrangements. She stated that she worked at MARS and

a person there introduced her to Chad. She did not know him and did not live with him in a normal

way. She just rented a room from him. She did not really talk to him or anything. She agreed Chad

also lived in the home she was renting from him. She stated that she contacted Ms. Spitz prior to

being evicted and asked her for resources or a way to help her not lose her home. She did not get

a response for over a month and by then she was living in her car. At that time, Ms. Spitz told her

                                                15
she could come to the office, fill out paperwork, and get help to pay the back rent, but by then it

was too late.

¶ 34   Shannon was also questioned as to why it was not her fault that she did not attend drug

testing. Shannon explained that Ms. Spitz switched the drug testing to Sarah Bush. When Shannon

went to Sarah Bush she was not allowed to test because she did not have an ID. Ms. Spitz kept

sending her to test at that facility although she knew Shannon did not have an ID that would allow

her to test at that facility. Ms. Spitz finally moved her back to testing in Charleston. When she

returned to the Charleston facility, they could not test that day and she went to her employer’s

testing and was tested. The State asked why she did not have an ID, and she stated that the DMV

will not provide one without a home address that can receive mail, which she did not have.

¶ 35   Shannon admitted to testing positive for cannabis and stated the finding of amphetamine

was due to Adderall, which she took three times a day to help her focus and calm down. However,

she did not believe it was working.

¶ 36   She stated she had Rami as her first caseworker for approximately three months. Rami told

her OHU was going to make her a service plan, that she would receive the service plan and would

have to abide by it. She had a bunch of caseworkers after that. She confirmed that she never sat

for an integrated assessment. When asked how she knew to take the parenting class, she stated that

Rami directed her to take it. She knew she needed a mental health evaluation and substance abuse

evaluation, but she never received “a clear form that this is your service plan, this is what you need

to be doing. Rami’s suggestions were all I was running on.” She stated that she never had a copy

of what she was supposed to do until March 17, 2022, when she requested a copy from Ms. Spitz.

¶ 37   Following closing arguments, the circuit court found the State failed to show that Shannon

failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minors’

                                                 16
welfare. The court noted the case was 18 months old and that Shannon did make some effort and

some progress. The court noted her completion of parenting classes and the two years of ongoing

mental health treatment but found the latter “inconclusive,” stating:

       “The Court didn’t receive any information *** related to that treatment as to whether or

       not it’s effective or whether—aside from [Shannon] feeling it has a positive impact on her

       life, but there’s no prognosis given as to [Shannon’s] ongoing mental health, so it’s difficult

       for the Court to draw a conclusion either way as to whether the progress made related to

       [Shannon’s] mental health was substantial.”

¶ 38   The court found Shannon’s cooperation in the case sporadic but noted there were at least

three different caseworkers which made it difficult for any parent to have any consistent

communication with a caseworker when they changed so often. The court balanced this with the

fact that the burden regarding contact was on the parent and the lack of contact fell on Shannon.

¶ 39   With regard to visitation, the court stated the shortened visits were Shannon’s fault and she

could have enforced the time limits. The court expressed concern about what Shannon would do

if there were no supervisors or caseworkers to hand the children off to. While the court stated it

would balance the agency supervised visitation evidence with the newly obtained information

revealing that Shannon had frequent video visitation with Mikayla, no conclusion regarding

visitation was provided.

¶ 40   The court stated it had “serious questions regarding stable housing beyond the eviction”

including the missed rents before then. As to Shannon’s current housing, the court noted it was “a

single bedroom in another individual’s home” that Shannon did not know very well and was

“[c]ertainly not suitable for children. Certainly not suitable for reasonable progress to correcting

these conditions.” The court further questioned Shannon’s financial struggles when she was

                                                 17
employed full time at a factory, stating, “It’s difficult for me to understand why there is this

ongoing financial issues when [Shannon] is employed full-time.”

¶ 41   The court noted multiple missed drug screens and that every single test taken was positive

for THC. The court noted that it was a legal substance but stated:

       “[T]he bottom line is someone with a substance abuse issue shouldn’t be engaging in any

       substances. I wouldn’t be comfortable with an alcoholic coming in court and telling me, I

       drink alcohol every day. And I’m not comfortable with someone who admittedly has a

       substance abuse issue taking substance, mood-altering substances, but when I consider the

       totality of the circumstances, there has just been too much time to pass and not nearly

       enough progress made for the Court to find that the conditions are even close to being

       corrected in this case, and based on that I’m going to find the State has proven by clear and

       convincing evidence that [Shannon] has failed to make reasonable efforts or progress

       towards the return of the children to her care during the nine-month period; specifically

       December 21st of 2021, through September 21st of 2022.”

¶ 42   Thereafter, the court proceeded with the best interest hearing. The State called Ms. Spitz

who stated the children were first placed with fictive kin and moved in with a foster family on

October 25, 2022. She stated the foster family lived in a three-bedroom apartment and Mikayla

and Shyla had their own rooms. Since that time, two additional foster children were added to the

home. Ms. Spitz testified that the current foster parents expressed interest in adopting Mikayla.

When asked their position regarding Shyla, Ms. Spitz stated Shyla was old enough to decide which

route she wanted to go, so she talked to Shyla about the options of independence and adoption.

She stated the foster family wanted to adopt Mikayla, but she could not confirm they wanted to

                                                18
adopt Shyla. She stated that she witnessed the children in this home and described it as a loving

home.

¶ 43    Shannon stated, “I got to go. I can’t take this anymore.” A brief recess was taken and upon

Shannon’s return, the hearing resumed. Ms. Spitz testified that Mikayla was excited in the foster

house and loved to play, talk to people, and run around. Ms. Spitz stated Shyla was asleep when

she visited and after Mikayla woke her up, she was unhappy. She stated that both Shyla and

Mikayla appeared well-groomed and healthy. The only issue that had arisen since Shyla was at the

house involved issues with her medication. The caseworker stated that neither child expressed

concerns, malcontent, or gave her red flags as to their safety, health, or well-being. She observed

the children with the foster parents, and stated they had a loving relationship.

¶ 44    On cross-examination, Ms. Spitz stated the girls had always been placed together except

once and admitted they had been through five placements. She was unsure why they were moved

from the first place and stated they were moved from the second and third places due to behavioral

reasons. After that “we just struggled to find somewhere willing to take both of them because we

didn’t want to split them up” so “they were in *** three temporary placements.” She stated the

behavioral issues involved both girls. She agreed the girls had been in their current placement less

than a month but stated they were handling the transition pretty well. She further admitted that she

had not witnessed Shyla and Mikayla with the two additional children that recently moved in. She

stated the new children included a 3-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy. She stated Shyla wished

to maintain contact with her mother and the caseworker believed “this was likely to happen.” Shyla

wanted a goal of independence the last time they spoke. She saw Shyla and Mikayla three times

in their current residence and did not observe any behavioral issues with either child while she was

there. She also confirmed that she did not see any behavioral issues when the girls were with

                                                 19
Shannon either. She stated the behavioral issues were observed when the caseworker was moving

the children or taking them somewhere they needed to be. She stated Shyla had not expressed any

opinion recently as to whether she wanted to be returned to Shannon and agreed Shyla “went back

and forth on that issue.”

¶ 45    Closing arguments were waived by the State and Shannon’s attorney. CASA argued that it

would be in the best interests of the children to terminate Shannon’s parental rights because “they

are with a foster family that appears to be able to deal with any behavioral issues that have

previously started in any previous placements, and I would ask that the Court give them a chance

to be a part of this foster family life.”

¶ 46    Thereafter, the court stated:

                “All right, this is a somewhat unusual situation for [a] best interest hearing. The

        testimony is that, first of all, the girls have switched placements five times, which is a very

        unusual amount of time for the kids to be in any single placement. Five changes [are] a lot.

                The other concern the Court has is the most recent placement *** hasn’t even been

        a month yet. *** [T]he only testimony the Court has heard today is that the children are

        well taken care of, well groomed. They have their own rooms. The environment that they

        are living in is a loving environment, but it’s frankly, a limited amount of information for

        the Court to rely on, and now there’s the added change with the household *** [with] two

        new potential foster children that have been placed in the home.

                So I think it’s a tougher decision than typically necessary on a best interest hearing,

        but considering the only evidence that I have presented, I think the State has proven by a

        preponderance of the evidence that it is in the best interest today that this motion be granted.

                                                  20
               So I will enter an Order today. I am going to hold off on setting an immediate

       permanency hearing because the evidence today presented is inconsistent at least as to

       Shyla as to whether or not the goal in this case is going to be an adoption or a goal of

       independence, so I want to give the parties an opportunity to prepare a report and to make

       recommendations and present evidence, if necessary, to the Court.”

¶ 47   On December 2, 2022, CASA submitted a permanency report. Shyla was 16 years old and

remained in the foster family home, continued to attend high school, missed several days in the

last few weeks, and had not consistently seen her counselor at Life Links during the reporting

period. She was scheduled for a psychological evaluation on December 9, 2022. After the last

hearing, Shyla “stated emphatically to this CASA that she desires a goal of independence.” Five

days later, Shyla advised her that she still did not have all her prescribed medication. She had the

sertraline, but still needed prazosin and trazodone. Following a call to the caseworker, the

insurance issue was resolved, and the medications were available for pickup that day. The foster

family stated that Shyla had not yet been fingerprinted but planned to get it done. The reporter

stated, “This CASA observes Shyla to be a personable, intelligent young person who feels she’s

ready to take care of herself. Shyla appears to be resourceful, self-sufficient, and mindful of her

circumstances. This CASA further observes Shyla to struggle between making better choices for

herself and resorting to choices she’s made under the influence of her mother.”

¶ 48   With regard to Mikayla, the foster family reported no profane language or sexual behavior.

OHU made a referral to SACIS, but the facility required the current foster parents to reach out to

them before treatment would be started. Mikayla struggled with disruptive behaviors in school,

and the foster parents were often called to retrieve her. Her most recent behaviors involved hitting

                                                21
and biting her teacher along with spitting on her classmates. She was also diagnosed with reactive

attachment disorder (RAD).

¶ 49   The OHU report, filed December 15, 2022, stated that Shyla was not consistently attending

Charleston High School and informed the foster family that she wanted to transfer back to

Cumberland High School. The caseworker was trying to work out a plan to ensure Shyla could

attend the school where she felt more comfortable. Shyla was struggling with her mental health,

and due to consents, it was a struggle to get her proper medication. She recently got all her needed

medication, but due to the lapse and inconsistency with taking it, Shyla had a mental health crisis.

She agreed to go to Sarah Bush Lincoln Emergency Room, and it was deemed necessary for her

to be transferred to The Pavilion Foundation in Champaign, Illinois. Shyla was currently

hospitalized to get proper medication and treatment.

¶ 50   Mikayla was struggling with her behavior at school and her best days were considered

“decent” behavior. There was a meeting scheduled for December 13, 2022, to discuss her

education. She was participating in play therapy due to her behaviors. She also demonstrated

sexual behaviors, so she was referred to SACIS.

¶ 51   The report also addressed Shannon and stated the following:

               “Throughout Shyla’s mental health crisis, Shannon was allowed to visit with Shyla

       before she was taken to the hospital. Shannon was supportive and concerned about Shyla

       and her safety and was a help in calming Shyla down while she was in the ER. However,

       this worker was informed that Shyla and Shannon had visits prior to this that were not

       approved by the foster parent or caseworker. This worker would like to see this not continue

       and for visits to be approved before they occurred.”

                                                22
¶ 52   OHU recommended Mikayla’s permanency goal be changed to adoption. The agency

recommended that Shyla’s permanency goal be changed to independence.

¶ 53   The permanency hearing was held on December 16, 2022. At that hearing, Shannon

advised the court that she wished to appeal the court’s prior rulings and counsel was appointed.

After Shannon left, the court stated that it believed the recommendation for goals was adoption for

Mikayla and independence for Shyla. It stated, “I think my CASA report agrees with those

recommendations.” CASA and the State joined in those recommendations. Thereafter, the court

entered a permanency order changing Mikayla’s goal to adoption and Shyla’s goal to

independence. The trial court’s order stated the reason for the goal change as, “Parental [r]ights

have been terminated and Shyla is of age and desires to be independent.”

¶ 54                                   II. ANALYSIS

¶ 55   Termination of parental rights proceedings are governed by 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)). After a petition for involuntary termination is filed under the Juvenile Court Act, a two-

step process is required for parental rights termination. See 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2020).

Our courts have recognized that parental rights and responsibilities are of deep importance and

should not be terminated lightly. In re C.P., 191 Ill. App. 3d 237, 244 (1989). As such, the State

must first establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that a parent is unfit under one of the

grounds set forth in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2020)). In re

Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d 883, 889 (2004). “If the court makes a finding of unfitness, the court

then considers whether it is in the best interests of the child that parental rights be terminated.”

In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198, 210 (2002).

                                                23
¶ 56    On appeal, Shannon argues that the trial court’s findings of unfitness pursuant to sections

1(D)(m)(i) and 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i), (ii) (West 2020)) were

against the manifest weight of the evidence. She further argues that the trial court’s finding that it

was in the children’s best interest to terminate her parental rights was against the manifest weight

of the evidence. In the alternative, Shannon argues that her trial counsel was ineffective.

¶ 57                                      A. Unfitness

¶ 58    The circuit court found Shannon was unfit on two grounds alleged by the State. In a

proceeding to terminate parental rights, “[a] parent’s rights may be terminated if even a single

alleged ground for unfitness is supported by clear and convincing evidence.” In re Gwynne P., 215

Ill. 2d 340, 349 (2005). “This means that, on review, if there is sufficient evidence to satisfy any

one statutory ground we need not consider other findings of parental unfitness.” In re M.J., 314

Ill. App. 3d 649, 655 (2000).

¶ 59                                 1. Reasonable Progress

¶ 60    “The overriding purpose of the Juvenile Court Act is to ensure that the best interest of the

minor, the minor’s family, and the community are served.” In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 209 (2001).

The Act provides “the procedures to be followed in cases, such as the present one, including

abused, neglected or dependent minors.” Id. “ ‘Progress’ ordinarily denotes movement or

advancement toward a goal.” Id. at 211. Our supreme court held that the benchmark for measuring

reasonable progress “encompasses the parent’s compliance with the service plans and the court’s

directives, in light of the condition which gave rise to the removal of the child, and in light of other

conditions which later become known and which would prevent the court from returning custody

of the child to the parent.” Id. at 216-17. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that

                                                  24
       “in light of the ‘deep human importance’ of parental rights and responsibilities [citation],

       and the fundamental liberty interest at stake [citation], courts must take care to ensure that

       the statutory requirements for service plans are met in every case, and that the overall focus

       in evaluating a parent’s progress toward the return of the child remains, at all times, on the

       fitness of the parent in relation to the needs of the child.” Id. at 216.

¶ 61   On appeal, Shannon argues that the trial court’s finding of unfitness was against the

manifest weight of the evidence, given the “inefficiencies of One Hope’s efforts in this case.” On

review, we will find the circuit court’s findings are “against the manifest weight of the evidence

only where the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent.” In re N.G., 2018 IL 121939, ¶ 29.

Shannon’s arguments address the numerous caseworkers involved in this matter, the agency’s

failure to perform an integrative assessment, the agency’s failure to file the dispositional report

with the court, the agency’s failure to provide Shannon with a copy of the service plan until she

“begged” for it on March 17, 2022, and the agency’s failure to provide timely communicative

responses when Shannon reached out to the agency. Shannon also argues that the trial court shifted

the burden from the State to her in making two of its findings.

¶ 62   A “ ‘[s]ervice plan’ means a written plan on a form prescribed by [DCFS] in the plan

toward the permanency goal for the children required by 42 USC 675(5), 325 ILCS 5/8.2, and 89

Ill. Adm. Code 315 (Permanency Planning).” 89 Ill. Adm. Code 301.20 (eff. May 3, 2019). In

order for a state to receive federal funding, the service plan must include, inter alia, a “plan for

assuring that the child receives safe and proper care and that services are provided to the parents,

child, and foster parents in order to improve the conditions in the parents’ home, facilitate return

of the child to his own safe home or the permanent placement of the child ***.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 675(1)(B) (2018). A service plan is “designed to stabilize the family situation” and includes

                                                  25
alternative situations including keeping the family together, reunification when safe and

appropriate, or moving the child toward a different and permanent legal status. 20 ILCS 505/6a(a)

(West 2020). The service plan is to be prepared and filed with the court within 45 days after the

minor is placed in shelter care. 705 ILCS 405/2-10.1 (West 2020). The agency must also “file with

the court and serve on the parties a parent-child visiting plan, within 10 days” of its appointment

as the executive temporary custodian of the child. Id. § 2-10(2). That plan sets out, inter alia, “the

time and place of visits, the frequency of visits, the length of visits, who shall be present at the

visits,” and may provide other means of communication between the parent and child. Id.

¶ 63    In order to determine whether the trial court’s finding of unfitness for failure to make

reasonable progress was against the manifest weight of the evidence, we consider Shannon’s

service plan and the court’s directives. Upon review of the record, no court directive setting forth

Shannon’s services was ever issued, and no service plan is contained in the record. 3 Considering

the testimony, in conjunction with the State’s closing arguments at the fitness hearing, it is also

questionable as to whether Shannon’s integrated assessment was ever performed. As explained by

Ms. Cochrane, the integrated assessment is used to determine what services are required by the

parent as well as the parent’s progress in reaching the goal of completion on the service plan.

¶ 64    We note that despite the statute’s use of the word “shall” regarding the preparation and

filing of a service plan, Illinois courts have classified the statutory filing requirement for a service

plan as “directory” as opposed to “mandatory.” In re L.O., 2016 IL App (3d) 150083, ¶ 21. In L.O.,

the service plan was not filed with the court. Id. ¶ 7. However, a dispositional report, one

addendum, and an integrated assessment report were filed. Id. ¶ 6. After finding the respondent

        3
         We also note that the visitation plan, although filed with the court, provided none of the required
statutory information.
                                                    26
unfit, “the trial court ordered respondent to complete several tasks *** designed to correct the

conditions that led to the adjudication and removal” of the child. Id. ¶ 10. The specific tasks recited

by the court included: cooperation with the agency, drug and alcohol assessments, psychological

examinations and compliance with any recommended treatment, drug testing, individual

counseling, a parenting course, a domestic violence course, obtain and maintain stable housing,

visitation, participate in an undated integrated assessment interview, and abstain from alcohol and

drugs not prescribed by a physician. Id. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court had

authority to order respondent to perform certain services in the absence of an agency-filed service

plan as required by statute. Id. ¶ 19. After finding no particular consequences stemmed from the

agency’s failure to timely file the service plan, the court found the statute directory, and the trial

court’s authority to provide the service directives was proper. Id. ¶ 21.

¶ 65   Here, unlike L.O., the record contains no integrated assessment or dispositional order and

there was no recitation from the trial court as to what services Shannon was to perform—in

addition to no service plan being filed with the court. The State claims these absences are

acceptable because “there is no doubt what the requirements of respondent’s service plan were or

that respondent knew what she needed to do.” The State relies on the June 29, 2021, CASA report

and Shannon’s testimony that her initial caseworker advised her as to what some of her expected

services might be. As to the latter, we find the mere suggestion of what might be encompassed in

the service plan an insufficient substitute for an actual service plan.

¶ 66   The State’s reliance on the CASA report is equally unwarranted. The report was filed prior

to CASA entering its appearance as the guardian ad litem (GAL) in the matter. A GAL represents

the best interest of the minor and presents recommendations to the court consistent with that duty

after meeting with the minor, assessing the circumstances, and determining what disposition might

                                                  27
be in the minor’s best interest. People v. Austin M., 2012 IL 111194, ¶ 69. While the GAL report

contained a list of recommendations that included a statement that Shannon “was to communicate

and cooperate with One Hope United and engage in services such as mental health counseling,

substance abuse treatment and domestic violence treatment,” no basis for the recommended

services was provided in the report. Further, the State cites no authority allowing a GAL to prepare

a parent’s service plan, which is not surprising considering the statute requires DCFS or its

assignee (here OHU) to prepare the plan. 705 ILCS 405/2-10.1 (West 2020).

¶ 67   Reliance on CASA’s recommendation is further undermined by the January 7, 2022, OHU

permanency report filed nine months after the CASA report. The OHU document listed Shannon’s

services as substance abuse assessment and treatment, drug screens, mental health, parenting

education, and visitation. There is no mention of the domestic violence service previously listed

by CASA. The agency report also listed services not included in CASA’s report. The agency’s

June 14, 2022, permanency report listed three additional services not found in the January 2022

report. This report stated, as “[p]er the service plan,” Shannon was to “complete parenting classes,

substance abuse assessment and treatment, mental health assessment and treatment, cooperate and

communicate with the agency, get suitable housing, and have a legal source of income.” These

service requirements are the same as those listed in the agency’s November 10, 2022, termination

hearing report. As such, we believe these are the accurate requirements; however, Shannon’s

argument regarding the agency’s failure to timely provide her with the necessary information

regarding her service plan, or how to complete the requisite services, must also be considered in

the analysis.

¶ 68   The period of unfitness alleged in the State’s petition was from December 21, 2021,

through September 21, 2022. Accordingly, we consider Shannon’s progress with these services

                                                28
solely for the period listed, remaining mindful that Shannon was not provided with her service

plan until she was three months into the period alleged by the State and the first written record of

her service requirements was not filed with the court until June 14, 2022, nearly six months into

the period alleged by the State. There is no dispute that Shannon completed the parenting classes

and the court recognized Shannon’s achievement of this goal.

¶ 69    The second requirement was substance abuse and treatment. The record reveals Shannon

performed the substance abuse assessment three times at CEAD, the facility preferred by OHU.

The record further revealed that Shannon attempted to get into ABBCON, in August 2022, but

was unsuccessful due to insurance issues. There is no dispute that Shannon failed to complete any

substance abuse program. What remains unclear however, is whether the service plan requirements

stemming from the first substance abuse assessment were ever relayed to Shannon.

¶ 70    In addition to substance abuse and treatment, Shannon was required to submit to drug

testing. The initial testing performed prior to removal of the children revealed positive tests for

methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC. The State’s petition alleged neglect based on

Shannon’s use of illegal drugs. Drug testing prior to the alleged period revealed positive tests for

methamphetamine, amphetamine, 4 and THC. 5 Testing performed during the alleged period

revealed a positive test for THC on March 24, 2022. Testing on April 7, 2022, and April 15, 2022,

was positive for THC and amphetamines. Testing performed on April 27, 2022, May 5, 2022, and

May 13, 2022, was positive for THC. Testing performed on May 18, 2022, was positive for THC

and amphetamines. Testing performed on June 9, 2022, was positive for amphetamines. Shannon

        4
           It is undisputed that Shannon was prescribed Adderall for ADHD, and the prescription can result
in a positive finding for amphetamine.
         5
           THC is short for tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the chemical associated with cannabis and
marijuana. THC is legal in Illinois. Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (Pub. Act 101-27 (eff. June 25,
2019)).
                                                   29
did not complete testing on May 26, 2022, June 3, 2022, June 15, 2022, July 1, 2022, or August

31, 2022.

¶ 71    The November 10, 2022, agency termination report indicated that five additional random

tests were scheduled; however, no comments regarding whether any of those dates were within the

State’s prescribed period or reasons for nonattendance, if applicable, were provided. At the

hearing, Ms. Spitz testified that “in some instances there’s been errors on our end with scheduling

and things like that.” Shannon explained that Ms. Spitz sent her for drug testing at Sarah Bush, but

she could not obtain testing at that facility due to her lack of a valid identification card. She further

testified that she advised Ms. Spitz of this issue but Ms. Spitz continued to send her to Sarah Bush

and only recently returned her drug testing to Help at Home in Charleston. Here, we find the

agency’s dilatory response to Shannon’s inability to perform drug testing at Sarah Bush gives

further credence to Shannon’s claims of agency ineffectiveness and undermines reliance on the

presumption that a parent’s failure to perform drug testing will be treated as a positive test result.

¶ 72    With regard to the services related to substance abuse and drug testing, the trial court stated:

        “[T]here were multiple drug screens missed, and every single drug screen that was taken

        showed positive for THC, and while that is a legal substance, the bottom line is someone

        with a substance abuse issue shouldn’t be engaging in any substances. I wouldn’t be

        comfortable with an alcoholic coming in court and telling me, I drink alcohol every day.

        And I’m not comfortable with someone who admittedly has a substance abuse issue taking

        substances, mood-altering substance.”

¶ 73    While the court’s position is understandable, the position is untenable due to the lack of

any directive issued by the court that required Shannon to abstain from smoking marijuana. The

State contends the court issued a directive to Shannon regarding the use of marijuana at the shelter

                                                   30
care hearing. However, the record does not support the claim. The issue at the shelter care hearing

was whether the children should be removed. The basis of the removal was the positive finding

for methamphetamine classified as “illegal drugs” by the State. The court stated, “Even though

marijuana is legal in the State, if it prevents somebody from paying attention to or caring for their

child, that could be a problem just as alcohol can be, or in excess alcohol.” Nothing in that

statement directed Shannon to abstain from marijuana. At most, the statement only indicated that

Shannon should limit her marijuana use to levels that would not affect her ability to care for her

children.

¶ 74   Nor is there any evidence that the agency directed Shannon to abstain from marijuana. “[I]t

is improper to terminate a parent’s rights on grounds not alleged in a petition to terminate.” In re

D.W., 214 Ill. 2d 289, 308 (2005). Here, the State’s petition to terminate claimed Shannon “failed

to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent.” The State’s petition of

neglect, which was the basis of the children’s removal, alleged Shannon “abuses illegal substances

while in a caretaker role of minor.” The children were removed due to Shannon’s use of illegal

drugs. However, the record is devoid of any finding that Shannon used illegal drugs at any time

during the State’s alleged period.

¶ 75   While the State claims, “Patently, [Shannon] abysmally failed to deal with her substance

abuse problem,” we disagree. It was undisputed that Shannon’s positive result for amphetamine

was based on her ADHD prescription and, as noted above as well as by the trial court, marijuana

is legal in Illinois. While Shannon tested positive for amphetamine, reliance on those tests for a

finding of illegal drug use is suspect given the testimony that Shannon’s prescriptions could have

caused those results. As such, the lack of finding by the trial court of any illegal drug use is

evidence of reasonable progress especially given Shannon’s lack of structured treatment.

                                                 31
¶ 76   “[I]n assessing substantial fulfillment of the parent’s obligations, the court must

‘recogniz[e] that compliance with DCFS service plans is a means to a desired end, not the end in

itself ***. A parent might succeed at reaching a goal envisioned by DCFS without following

DCFS’ specific directives.’ ” In re F.S., 322 Ill. App. 3d 486, 492 (2001) (quoting In re S.J., 233

Ill. App. 3d 88, 120 (1992)). For these reasons, the trial court’s finding that the State proved by

clear and convincing evidence that Shannon failed to make reasonable progress regarding the

substance abuse is not supported by the record and therefore is against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

¶ 77   The third service requirement was for Shannon to have a mental health assessment and

engage in any recommended treatment. The record revealed that Shannon was in counseling during

the period at issue. The agency reports indicated that Shannon repeatedly advised them of her

participation; however, the agency, which admitted it had the necessary executed consents from

Shannon, failed to confirm her attendance until the termination hearing. OHU also failed to obtain

Shannon’s records, or any statement of progress from either her counselor or her physician. Such

omission is relevant because the court specifically noted it did not receive any information “related

to that treatment as to whether or not it’s effective or whether—aside from [Shannon] feeling it

has positive impact on her life, but there’s no prognosis given as to [her] ongoing mental health.”

The court found it “difficult *** to draw a conclusion either way” as to whether Shannon made

substantial progress with her mental health.

¶ 78   On appeal, Shannon argued that the trial court shifted the burden of proof. No argument on

this issue was provided by the State. Given the court’s conclusion, or lack of conclusion, we cannot

disagree. The State always bears the burden of proof at the fitness portion of the termination

hearing and must present “clear and convincing” evidence of unfitness. In re M.D., 2022 IL App

                                                 32
(4th) 210288, ¶ 75. Here, the State’s failure to present evidence supporting its claim that Shannon

failed to make reasonable progress regarding her mental health service requirements, cannot result

in “difficult[y] *** to draw a conclusion either way.” The court’s inability to reach a conclusion

is the equivalent of pronouncing that the State failed to support its allegation on this issue with

clear and convincing evidence. Although no definitive ruling was issued by the trial court

regarding Shannon’s progress for this service, the lack of any ruling is erroneous given the State’s

burden. The error is further exemplified by Ms. Spitz’s testimony that Shannon would be

satisfactory for the mental health goal. As such, the trial court’s failure to find reasonable progress

for this service is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 79   The fourth service requirement was cooperation and communication with the agency. The

reports issued by OHU during the applicable period were dated January 7, 2022, June 14, 2022,

and September 12, 2022. The January 7, 2022, report, which did not even list this as a service

requirement, stated Shannon “continues to remain cooperative with One Hope United” but noted

difficulty in communicating with Shannon. We note, however, the report was prepared by Ms.

Cochrane who was only on the case two days before issuing the report. The second report stated,

“It has been reported that [Shannon] *** has been cooperative and communicative.” The third

report made no mention of Shannon’s progress with this goal although it would appear some

communication occurred because the caseworker was aware of Shannon’s employment and

additional visitation with the children at church.

¶ 80   Ms. Cochrane testified to difficulty in communicating with Shannon during her two-month

tenure as the caseworker; however, the testimony also revealed that she had the wrong telephone

number to contact Shannon and her only attempt to meet Shannon in person came when she was

transferring her duties to Ms. Spitz. Ms. Spitz testified that she sent a letter to Shannon on February

                                                  33
23, 2022, and Shannon responded on March 11, 2022, by providing her with her telephone number.

Ms. Spitz continued to communicate with Shannon in March just “getting to know her.” Later,

they started talking about doing the different services, specifically the drug screens. Those

conversations began in April 2022. Ms. Spitz mentioned even later communications involving a

referral and assistance when Shannon was getting evicted. In sum, Ms. Spitz described the

communication between her and Shannon as sporadic but when she did answer Shannon was very

informative and would let her know what was going on and talked about the kids.

¶ 81   It was Shannon who complained about the lack of communication from the agency. She

testified to her repeated requests for assistance before she was evicted and the agency’s failure to

respond for over a month, stating that by the time the agency responded, she had already been

evicted. Ms. Spitz confirmed that by the time she received the grant, Shannon had already been

evicted. Shannon also testified that she only received a copy of her service plan because she went

to the agency and begged for a copy of it. Ms. Spitz confirmed that Shannon came in on March

17, 2022, to receive and sign the service agreement. Finally, Shannon also testified about calling

Ms. Spitz, but receiving no response, when Shyla was hospitalized for her mental health issues.

¶ 82   After hearing all the evidence, the court acknowledged that numerous caseworkers were

associated with Shannon’s case, and the difficulty in maintaining communication due to the

inconsistencies associated with changing caseworkers. The court balanced that with Ms.

Cochrane’s testimony of having no communication during her two-month tenure, albeit the court

did not address the fact that Ms. Cochrane was using the wrong telephone number. The court then

noted that Ms. Spitz’s first contact was on March 11 and stated, “but the Court is aware there were

months that went by that [Shannon] had no contact and that falls on her.” The court stated Shannon

could have gone to One Hope United or DCFS; she could have called or gone in person, “done

                                                34
something.” The court stated, “There’s just, frankly, no explanation or valid excuse how you could

go that long without having any contact with anybody in this case, especially when you’re

represented by an attorney.”

¶ 83   Given the evidence and testimony in this case, we can only assume the court is referencing

the two months during Ms. Cochrane’s tenure, as there are no other periods when Shannon was

out of communication with the agency. On appeal, Shannon also argues that the trial court shifted

the burden of proof on her. We disagree. The court’s statements were not about the burden of

proof, and we agree with the State that it was Shannon’s responsibility to maintain contact with

either OHU or DCFS during that period. See In re Sheltanya S., 309 Ill. App. 3d 941, 958 (1999);

In re T.D., 268 Ill. App. 3d 239, 249 (1994). However, the agency’s failure to diligently respond

to Shannon’s communications is concerning and again adds credence to Shannon’s claims of

agency ineffectiveness.

¶ 84   We also share the trial court’s concern with the number of caseworkers involved. There

was no evidence presented that Shannon was ever aware of Ms. Cochrane’s services in January

and February 2022, as by Ms. Cochrane’s own admission, she was using the wrong telephone

number to contact Shannon. Nor was there any evidence submitted that Shannon was advised of

who took over after her initial three months with her caseworker, Rami, prior to Ms. Cochrane’s

entrance in January 2022. Regardless, even if we presume the lack of communication in January

and February 2022 was solely due to Shannon’s failure to contact the agency, the months thereafter

revealed Shannon repeatedly attempted to communicate with the agency; however, the agency

failed to timely respond regarding Shyla’s hospitalization, Shannon’s eviction, or her inability to

perform the drug testing at Sarah Bush.

                                                35
¶ 85   While the court suggested Shannon could have gone in person to the agency, the undisputed

evidence revealed that Shannon did present to the agency on March 17, 2022, in order to obtain a

copy of her service plan so she would know what she needed to complete. The evidence revealed

Shannon went from having no communication in January and February 2022, to communicating

with the agency thereafter. While the State claims Shannon “dismally failed to cooperate and

communicate,” its arguments were centered on the trial court’s statement regarding the two months

without contact which was at the beginning of the period. Despite the State’s claims of “dismal

failure,” its brief confirms communication between Ms. Spitz and Shannon from March 2022 to

September 2022, which shows reasonable progress from Shannon’s complete lack of

communication in January and February 2022. As such, any finding that Shannon failed to make

reasonable progress with this service requirement is against the manifest weight of the evidence,

as an opposite conclusion is clearly evident.

¶ 86   The fifth service requirement was to obtain and maintain suitable housing. Notably,

Shannon’s housing was not in issue prior to her eviction. While Ms. Spitz alleged Shannon’s

eviction occurred in May, Shannon clarified that her eviction was in July 2022, which was the

seventh month into the State’s alleged nine-month period. It is undisputed that thereafter, with no

assistance from the agency, Shannon obtained housing and was no longer homeless and living in

her car.

¶ 87   The State argues this is clear evidence of Shannon’s failure to make reasonable progress.

In support, the State lists Shannon’s eviction date as either “late spring or early summer, 2022,”

and notes that thereafter Shannon lived in her car for about six weeks and was now renting a room

from a guy she did not even know. The State then states that Shannon “lives this way despite the

fact that Ms. Spitz got [Shannon] a grant to help pay for her rent and [Shannon] got a job in May

                                                36
2022.” The State notes the court’s concerns with Shannon’s financial issues given her full-time

employment and states, “Apparently, though, [Shannon] had money to buy cannabis. In any case,

a car or a single bedroom in a stranger’s house is not suitable housing for a woman with two

children.”

¶ 88   First, the time frame for Shannon’s eviction is relevant. As the court noted, the eviction

was in July 2022, seven months into the period alleged by the State; as such, Ms. Spitz’s testimony

that Shannon “never had stable housing” while she was the caseworker was erroneous. Second,

contrary to the State’s contention, there was no evidence presented to support its claim that OHU’s

grant money was available after Shannon was evicted or how Shannon obtained marijuana. Given

the agency’s failure to obtain either Shannon’s medical or mental health records, it is possible that

Shannon’s marijuana was prescribed. However, even if Shannon was buying her marijuana, the

drug testing did not reveal a positive test for THC on June 9, 2022, the month prior to Shannon’s

eviction.

¶ 89   We also consider the court’s comments regarding Shannon’s transition from living in her

car to renting a room at a coworker’s house. The court stated, “[I]t’s a one-bedroom rental in

someone else’s—a single bedroom in another individual’s home that [Shannon] doesn’t know very

well. Certainly not suitable for children. Certainly not suitable for a reasonable progress to

correcting these conditions.” While we agree her current residence may not be considered suitable

until a background check is performed on the homeowner, we disagree that Shannon’s actions fail

to show progress as her situation improved from homelessness to having a place to live funded by

her own income. We further note this improvement occurred in less than two months.

¶ 90   There is no dispute that Shannon’s eviction and descent into homelessness reveals a

regression of progress. However, Shannon’s ability to find housing after being homeless moved

                                                 37
her closer to the goal of reunification. Reasonable progress requires the parent to make, at a

minimum, demonstrable movement toward the goal of reunification. In re K.P., 305 Ill. App. 3d

175, 180 (1999). Here, Shannon’s steps from homelessness to having a place to live funded by her

own income is a demonstrable step toward reunification, especially in light of the time frame at

issue, and therefore, we hold that the court’s findings on this issue were against the manifest weight

of the evidence.

¶ 91    The sixth service requirement was to have a legal source of income. The court questioned

Shannon’s finances in relation to her eviction, stating, “As it relates to income, *** it’s ***

difficult for me to understand why there is this ongoing financial issues when [Shannon] is

employed full-time.” Again, the evidence is important. Shannon had no job and was receiving SSI

when the case began. She obtained two jobs, one at Casey’s and one at a bakery, during the

pendency of the case. However, Shannon did not obtain full-time employment at MARS until July

2022, the same month as her eviction. The service requirement was to obtain a legal source of

income, which Shannon obtained. Accordingly, any finding that reasonable progress was not

shown for this service was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 92    Finally, visitation was also considered by the court. Ms. Spitz testified that there was no

visitation from February to May 2022 and from May 2022 to November 2022, there were less than

10 visits, mostly due to Shannon failing to call and confirm the appointment the day before. When

visitation occurred, it went well, but many visits were cut short due to location not necessarily

working out because the girls had vastly different interests due to their different ages. The

caseworker also noted that some visitations were canceled due to Shannon’s mandatory overtime

at her job.

                                                 38
¶ 93    Shannon testified that she spoke with Shyla on FaceTime nearly every day and had

supervised video visitation with Mikayla every night. She also addressed the issues that arose

during visitations stating that one ended early because Mikayla was running down the street with

DCFS chasing her and another ended early because Shyla was having an anxiety attack. She also

stated the children had other activities they wanted to attend. While she would have preferred to

have them the full time, she understood if the children needed to leave. Shannon explained that

Mikayla would act up during the public visitations and those actions embarrassed Shyla, who

preferred spending time with her friends over sitting in the library with Shannon while her little

sister clamored for Shannon’s attention.

¶ 94    After hearing the testimony, the court stated that “visitation was pretty poor” and blamed

the shortened visits on Shannon’s inability to handle the behavioral issues that arose during

visitation. The court also expressed concern with Shannon’s ability to manage her children when

she could not just return them to DCFS. Thereafter, the court stated it would balance the visitation

evidence with Shannon’s testimony regarding her “frequent video visitation with Mikayla that the

Court was not aware of.” However, no determination on this issue was provided by the court. As

such, we have no ruling to address on this issue.

¶ 95    We note, however, that Ms. Spitz’s testimony claiming a lack of visitation from February

2022 to May 2022 was clearly erroneous. The June 13, 2022, agency report indicated that the third

party who was supposed to be supervising the visitation during that period failed to document the

visits and, therefore, the visits could not be verified. An inability to verify is not the same as having

no visitation. Further, the failure to verify was a failure of the agency, not a fault by Shannon. We

also note that the agency report specifically stated Shannon had visitation the entire weekend of

March 18, 2022, at the foster family’s home.

                                                   39
¶ 96    Considering the totality of circumstances, including the fact that Shannon had at least three

caseworkers during the pendency of this matter, it is questionable as to whether any integrated

assessment was performed, no service plan was ever filed with the court, no dispositional report

was filed by the agency, the trial court’s dispositional order failed to set forth any requirements of

the service plan, respondent did not receive a copy of her service plan until three months into the

State’s alleged period of unfitness, and there was no court filing setting forth the service goals until

nearly six months into the nine-month period alleged by the State, we hold that the trial court’s

finding that Shannon failed to make reasonable progress towards her service goals is against the

manifest weight of the evidence. Even without considering the procedural deficiencies, opposite

conclusions were clearly evident; one ruling was based on an erroneous shifting of the burden of

proof and other service requirements had no ruling at all. As such, we reverse the trial court’s

finding that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Shannon failed to make

reasonable progress toward the return of her children.

¶ 97                                  2. Reasonable Efforts

¶ 98    “Reasonable efforts relate to the goal of correcting the conditions that caused the removal

of the child from the parent ***.” In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1052, 1066-67 (2006). The

efforts “are judged by a subjective standard based upon the amount of effort that is reasonable for

that particular person.” Id. “Parental deficiencies collateral to the conditions that were the basis for

the child’s removal, even if serious enough to prevent the return of the child, are outside the scope

of this inquiry and are therefore not relevant.” In re J.A., 316 Ill. App. 3d 553, 565 (2000) (citing

In re C.M., 305 Ill. App. 3d 154, 164 (1999)).

¶ 99    The courts have repeatedly held that it is imperative for the trial court to take steps to ensure

the parties are aware of the deficiencies requiring removal of their children and what steps need to

                                                   40
be taken to achieve a reconciliation and reunification of the family unit. See In re L.L.S., 218 Ill.

App. 3d 444, 465 (1991); In re C.M., 305 Ill. App. 3d at 165-66. As noted above, the latter

requirement was not established as statutorily required documents were never filed and the court’s

dispositional order failed to contain detailed steps for reunification. Further, it was undisputed that

Shannon did not receive a copy of her service plan for nearly a year and the specific requirements

to achieve reconciliation were not filed with the court until nearly a year after the dispositional

hearing. These uncontested facts play heavily in Shannon’s favor when considering whether her

effort in rectifying the reason for her children’s removal was reasonable.

¶ 100 The petition for adjudication of wardship alleged two counts of neglect in that the minors

were not receiving proper or necessary support (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a) (West 2020)) and were

in an environment injurious to the minor’s welfare (id. § 2-3(1)(b)). Both allegations were based

on Shannon’s failure to “adequately supervise the minor and minor’s siblings” and her abuse of

“illegal substances while in a caretaker role of [a] minor,” and these were the bases of the children’s

removal.

¶ 101 As to the claim of adequate supervision, we note that nearly every report from either OHU

or CASA revealed that in nearly every placement there were instances of Mikayla continuously

attempting to escape the homes. Shannon admitted that Mikayla escaped from her house because

the door was unlatched. After Mikayla’s removal the reports indicated that Mikayla would climb

objects to escape, and one family found it necessary to put bells on the door to alert them if Mikayla

tried to run. Further evidence revealed that when DCFS brought Mikayla to a supervised visitation

with Shannon, Mikayla escaped from their care and was running down the road. This issue

remained prevalent throughout this case regardless of who was supervising the child. While no

service specifically addressed this issue, Shannon did complete the parenting class which

                                                  41
potentially provided some insight in addressing this issue. As such, we find no evidence in the

record to support a finding that Shannon failed to make reasonable efforts to correct this condition

for which the children were removed.

¶ 102 The second basis for removal involved Shannon’s illegal drug abuse. Here, the trial court’s

finding of unfitness noted that Shannon’s marijuana use was legal but found her use was

unacceptable. At no time did the court rely on the finding of amphetamine, which the testimony

revealed was likely due to Shannon’s prescription, to claim an illegal substance was found during

drug testing in the period alleged by the State.

¶ 103 While there is no dispute that Shannon missed some of the scheduled drug testing, for the

reasons set forth above, the presumption of a positive test due to a failure to appear for testing is

inapplicable. The evidence revealed that Shannon presented for the testing, which is indicative of

reasonable effort. Here, the results for the drug testing that was performed revealed that Shannon

ceased taking illegal drugs and repeatedly presented for drug testing. As such, the trial court’s

finding that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Shannon failed to make

reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis of the children’s removal was

against the manifest weight of the evidence. As such, we reverse the finding.

¶ 104                         B. Termination of Parental Rights

¶ 105 A termination of parental rights is proper only if a finding of unfitness is made. Here,

because we have found the trial court’s findings of unfitness were against the manifest weight of

the evidence, the trial court’s order terminating Shannon’s parental rights is also reversed. While

unnecessary, we are compelled to address the court’s order on this issue. As noted by our supreme

court, the issue is “whether, in light of the child’s needs, parental rights should be terminated.”

(Emphasis in original.) In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 364 (2004).

                                                   42
¶ 106 The statute provides factors for the trial court’s decision in making the best interest

determination. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2020). These factors include (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 people available

to care for the child. Id. “The court may also consider the nature and length of the child’s

relationship with his present caretaker and the effect that a change in placement would have upon

his or her emotional and psychological well-being.” In re Ca. B., 2019 IL App (1st) 181024, ¶ 30.

¶ 107 While it is unnecessary for a court to address each statutory factor (In re Z.J., 2020 IL App

(2d) 190824, ¶ 74), the relevant factors for each case must be addressed. Here, the children were

placed in over five different homes during the pendency of this case and had been in their current

placement less than a month at the time of the hearing. Further, the testimony regarding the current

placement did not have any information as to how the children had assimilated into the family after

the foster family brought two additional foster children into the home. The foster family lived in a

three-bedroom apartment and the girls had their own rooms when they were placed with this

family. Indeed, the agency report specifically noted that Shyla was happy to have her own room.

However, no information was provided as to the rooming assignments after the two additional

foster children were brought into the home.

¶ 108 The court was cognizant of the unique situation it faced, stating “it’s a tougher decision

than typically necessary.” However, instead of addressing the statutory factors to determine

whether termination was in the best interest of the children, the court resigned itself to granting

the petition to terminate. Such conclusion has no basis in these proceedings as the State is the only

                                                  43
party with a burden of proof. More important, however, is the trial court’s failure to address any

of the relevant statutory factors in this case.

¶ 109 Notably, the State makes no argument regarding the statutory factors on appeal. Instead,

the State focuses on CASA’s statements at the permanency hearing on December 16, 2022, at

which time CASA advised the court Shyla “emphatically *** desires a goal of independence” and

CASA’s recommendation to terminate parental rights at the November termination hearing.

However, neither the State nor CASA addressed Shyla’s mental health issues at the best interest

hearing. This is especially concerning when the first statutory factor is the “physical safety and

welfare of the child” and the undisputed evidence revealed that Shyla’s mental health issues, a

mere four months prior to the best interest hearing, included a claim of self-harm and required a

three-week admission at Lincoln Prairie Behavior Health Center.

¶ 110 Nor do we find the State’s reliance on CASA’s statements at the December 16, 2022,

permanency hearing urging that Shyla’s goal should be changed to independence to be of any

merit. First, the State is considering evidence that was not before the trial court when the best

interest finding was made three weeks earlier. Further, even if we were to consider the evidence

and the State’s claim that a GAL should function as the “eyes and ears of the court” (In re Mark

W., 228 Ill. 2d 365, 374 (2008)), such function did not occur in this case.

¶ 111 Here, CASA did not address Shyla’s mental health issues, or Mikayla’s sexualized

behavior issues, at the best interest hearing despite the physical safety and welfare of the child

being the first factor for consideration at that hearing. Further, neither CASA, nor the State, advised

the trial court at the subsequent permanency hearing (referenced by the State on appeal) of Shyla’s

second mental health event following the termination of Shannon’s parental rights. Nor did CASA

or the State advise the court during the permanency hearing that Shyla was taken to the Sarah Bush

                                                  44
Lincoln Emergency Room, transferred to The Pavilion Foundation in Champaign, Illinois, or that

she remained hospitalized at the Pavilion as of December 15, 2022. 6

¶ 112 Equally concerning is CASA’s failure to advise the court at the December 16, 2022,

permanency hearing that Mikayla was diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder or that her

disruptive behavior was escalating at school to include hitting and biting the teacher as well as

spitting on her classmates. Instead of addressing the obvious mental health issues enveloping the

children, the State argued, and CASA recommended, the trial court change Mikayla’s goal to

adoption with a family she had only been with for seven weeks and Shyla’s goal to independence.

¶ 113 Nor do we find any merit in the State’s claim that “respondent was unfit and had little, if

anything, to offer the children.” Following Shyla’s second mental health event, the caseworker

stated the following:

                “Throughout Shyla’s mental health crisis, Shannon was allowed to visit with Shyla

        before she was taken to the hospital. Shannon was supportive and concerned about Shyla

        and her safety and was a help in calming Shyla down while she was in the ER.”

¶ 114 “Parental rights and responsibilities are of deep human importance and will not be lightly

terminated.” In re Paul, 101 Ill. 2d 345, 351-52 (1984). The statutory factors provide guidance to

the trial court in determining whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the

minor child. Here, the trial court expressed concern over the five placements of the children during

the pendency of this case as well as the fact that the current placement was less than a month. The

only evidence relied on by the court was Ms. Spitz’s testimony that the children were well taken

care of, well groomed, had their own rooms, and were living in a loving environment. Even the

        6
          It is equally difficult to find CASA was fulfilling the duty as the “eyes and ears of the court” or
representing the best interest of the children when CASA did not even include Shyla’s second mental health
event in its report; the only mention of Shyla’s second mental health event is contained in the OHU report.
                                                    45
court recognized that it was a “limited amount of information for the Court to rely on” especially

with the change in the household to include “two new potential foster children.” Of the four pieces

of evidence provided, one was diminished by the fact that it was unlikely the girls would retain

their own rooms when the foster family was living in a three-bedroom apartment.

¶ 115 Further, and not noted by the court, was the fact that no testimony or information was

provided regarding how Shyla and Mikayla adjusted to or interacted with the two new foster

children brought into the home. Here, it is apparent the State failed to provide the trial court with

sufficient evidence to address any of the statutory factors. As such, even if the finding of unfitness

had not been reversed, the trial court’s finding that it was in the best interest of the children to

terminate Shannon’s parental rights would require reversal.

¶ 116     Finally, Shannon argues, in the alternative, that her trial counsel was ineffective by failing

to present evidence or argument at the best interest hearing. Given our disposition, it is unnecessary

to address this issue.

¶ 117                                  III. CONCLUSION

¶ 118 For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the trial court’s findings of unfitness and its

order finding it was in the best interest of Shyla and Mikayla to terminate Shannon’s parental

rights.

¶ 119 Reversed.

                                                   46