Court Opinion

ID: 9832641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:04:50.318437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:19.371723
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (5th) 230319-U
            NOTICE
                                                                                      NOTICE
 Decision filed 09/01/23. The
                                                                           This order was filed under
 text of this decision may be              NO. 5-23-0319
                                                                           Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
 changed or corrected prior to
 the filing of a Petition for                                              not precedent except in the

 Rehearing or the disposition of
                                              IN THE                       limited circumstances allowed
 the same.                                                                 under Rule 23(e)(1).
                                   APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                               FIFTH DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

In re S.G., a Minor                             )     Appeal from the
                                                )     Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois,           )     Jackson County.
                                                )
       Petitioner-Appellee,                     )
                                                )
v.                                              )     No. 20-JA-21
                                                )
Bonnie B.,                                      )     Honorable
                                                )     Ella L. Y. Travelstead,
       Respondent-Appellant).                   )     Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

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

                                            ORDER

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

¶2       Bonnie B. (Bonnie) is the mother of S.G., a female child. The Department of Children and

Family Services (DCFS) had an intact family case open in this case. Bonnie and S.G. lived in

public housing. Bonnie repeatedly allowed individuals to move in and out of this apartment, which

was in a chronic unsanitary condition. After someone reported that Bonnie had been smoking

methamphetamine, DCFS had her tested, and she tested positive for methamphetamine. S.G. was

then removed from Bonnie’s home and placed in protective custody.

                                                 1
¶3        Due to Bonnie’s failure to make reasonable progress towards the return of S.G. to her care,

the State filed its motion to terminate her parental rights. After the trial court found that Bonnie

was an unfit parent, the court concluded that it was in S.G.’s best interest to terminate Bonnie’s

parental rights. Bonnie appeals from these orders.

¶4                                           I. BACKGROUND

¶5        S.G. was born on March 25, 2016. Her mother is Bonnie and her father is Kent G. (Kent). 1

DCFS became involved in this case in early 2019. An intact family case was instigated and DCFS

implemented a safety plan for Bonnie to address the issues that were threatening S.G. In the months

before DCFS took S.G. into protective custody, DCFS was sent to Bonnie’s apartment several

times to respond to concerns about S.G.’s safety. On June 22, 2020, DCFS was again called to

Bonnie’s apartment, which continued to be cluttered with food, dirty dishes, garbage, clothing,

and other debris “rendering the residence unsafe for the minor child.” DCFS removed S.G. from

Bonnie’s home on that date. On June 23, 2020, DCFS filed its petition asking the court to

adjudicate S.G. as a neglected minor pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of

1987 (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)) and to place her in shelter care.

¶6        On June 24, 2020, the trial court held the shelter care hearing and found that there was

probable cause to believe that S.G. was a neglected minor and there was an immediate and urgent

necessity supporting her removal from Bonnie’s home. Temporary custody of S.G. was placed

with DCFS.

¶7        The trial court held the adjudicatory hearing on October 7, 2020. Bonnie stipulated that the

evidence would be substantially similar to the evidence at the shelter care hearing. The court

          1
           On April 25, 2023, Kent formally surrendered his parental rights to S.G. and is not a party to this
appeal.

                                                       2
entered its adjudicatory order finding that S.G. was a neglected minor and that it was in her best

interest to remain in the custody of DCFS.

¶8      On October 30, 2020, DCFS filed its dispositional report. In addition to the reports that

Bonnie smoked methamphetamine around S.G. and allowed people to move into her apartment,

which was in an unsanitary condition, there were also reports that four-year-old S.G. had been

seen wandering the neighborhood by herself. DCFS determined that Bonnie’s service needs were

to obtain and maintain housing, undergo parental training, obtain a substance abuse assessment

and submit to random drug tests, obtain a domestic violence assessment, obtain a mental health

assessment, obtain a psychological assessment, and engage in visitation with S.G.

¶9     Bonnie had begun parenting instruction in her home with Project 12-Ways, but the

instructor reported on September 17, 2020, that Bonnie could not keep the apartment clean. Project

12-Ways indicated that the focus would shift from the entire apartment to just the living room and

kitchen, that they would create a checklist for Bonnie, and planned to teach Bonnie structure and

cleaning skills.

¶ 10   Bonnie was proactive with the mandated random drug tests and had tested negative 15

times since July 15, 2020. Because she had consistently tested negative, DCFS did not require her

to complete a substance abuse evaluation. Bonnie also indicated that she would contact The

Women’s Center to make an appointment for domestic violence counseling. Bonnie planned to

use Centerstone for her mental health assessment.

¶ 11   Bonnie had supervised visitation with S.G. two times weekly for a total of four hours. S.G.

remained in the foster home where she was initially placed in June 2020. DCFS reported that she

was adjusting well in this placement. On November 4, 2020, the trial court held a dispositional

                                                3
hearing, at the conclusion of which the court entered its order finding that S.G. was a neglected

minor, and guardianship and custody were placed with DCFS.

¶ 12   DCFS filed a permanency report on April 5, 2021, providing the substantive background

for its involvement with Bonnie, who was reported to have developmental delays and a social

security disability. Bonnie had Adult Protective Services involved in her own care. In 2018, Bonnie

was in a shelter because of domestic abuse by S.G.’s biological father, Kent. In the shelter, Bonnie

met a woman named Crystal. Thereafter, in June 2018, Crystal and her boyfriend, David, began

living with Bonnie and S.G. Adult Protective Services got involved on Bonnie’s behalf because

Crystal and David were financially exploiting her. Crystal and David were suspected substance

abusers. In January 2019, Bonnie was physically assaulted by a third party in her apartment.

Agency advocates working with Bonnie called a team meeting to attempt to extract her from this

home. Bonnie refused to go into a shelter again because she believed that Kent was going to

provide her with a trailer in which she and S.G. could live. No trailer was provided so Bonnie

advised that she was going to go to a hotel and stay with a sex offender named Robert. Whether

she went to this hotel was not indicated in the report. The agency advocates reported that there was

no familial support for Bonnie.

¶ 13   DCFS reported that though Bonnie remained active in parenting education with Project 12-

Ways, in its mid-March 2021 report, the agency stated its intent to close Bonnie out from service

because of her ongoing difficulties to retain information. Project 12-Ways reported that the home

had major environmental issues and was constantly unclean. Overall, Bonnie was stagnant in

progressing in the program. Bonnie informed DCFS that she had contacted the approved agency

to schedule individual psychotherapy. DCFS was waiting for written approval to schedule Bonnie

for a psychological exam. Bonnie had tested negative on all weekly drug tests. Bonnie currently

                                                 4
lived in public housing, but had received an eviction notice due to the home’s condition—animal

feces, moldy food in dishes, trash and debris in the living room and kitchen, and fruit flies and

roaches within the home. Bonnie was consistent with her visits with S.G. However, ADDUS

HOMECARE (ADDUS), the entity supervising the visits, raised concerns about Bonnie’s

relationship with someone named Johnny with whom she had video calls during the supervised

visits. Bonnie asked S.G. to refer to Johnny as “New Daddy.” During one video call, Johnny was

directing Bonnie to take $500 from her bank account or he would leave her for a different woman

who would give him the money.

¶ 14   Overall, DCFS reported its concerns that Bonnie struggled with the ability to properly and

safely parent S.G. Bonnie received assistance from Adult Protective Services and had a payee

through Shawnee Alliance who managed Bonnie’s bills. DCFS asked the trial court to remove the

weekly drug tests order and to allow DCFS to schedule monthly random drug tests.

¶ 15   The court entered its order on April 29, 2021, maintaining the permanency goal to return

S.G. home within 12 months. Custody and guardianship of S.G. was ordered to remain with DCFS.

The court modified the drug testing requirements to allow DCFS the discretion for scheduling.

¶ 16   On August 27, 2021, Dr. Nikki Hernandez, a psychologist, filed her court-ordered report.

Bonnie was 44 years old when she was tested and evaluated. State agencies were involved with

Bonnie and her mother when Bonnie was a child. Bonnie’s mother had mental health issues. She

lived with her mother in and out of shelters until she turned 18. Bonnie reported a history of being

sexually molested by her biological father. Both of Bonnie’s parents were deceased, and although

she did have siblings, she did not know their names or whereabouts. Bonnie reported that she had

never been married and her only significant relationship was with S.G.’s father, Kent, which lasted

from 2015 to 2018. Bonnie claimed that Kent was physically and emotionally abusive. Bonnie has

                                                 5
never been arrested. Although Bonnie tested positive for methamphetamine one time, she was

unable to explain that result.

¶ 17   Overall, Bonnie’s cognitive and academic functioning was extremely low. Her adaptive

functioning was also extremely low, including the tests for “use of community, home and school

functioning, self-care, and health and safety.” Testing established that Bonnie met the criteria for

a diagnosis of mild intellectual disability and that she “evidenced significant deficits with relation

to adaptive functioning, particularly in the areas of including conceptual and practical

functioning.” The psychologist indicated that these deficits left Bonnie vulnerable for problems

including “understanding rules/societal norms, the ability to navigate the tasks of daily living, and

appropriately participating in family, school, and community activities.” Noting that these

functional impairments are lifelong, the report indicated that Bonnie’s deficits require support and

“make independent parenting unlikely and unsafe.” Moreover, these intellectual deficits

“significantly impede [Bonnie’s] *** ability to *** benefit from parenting instruction.”

¶ 18   On September 8, 2021, DCFS filed its next permanency report. As of that date, Bonnie had

been closed out of parenting education with Project 12-Ways because she could not retain

information. DCFS had received no documentation to establish that Bonnie was engaged in

individual psychotherapy. Bonnie’s home continued to be cluttered and unclean. Bonnie

maintained regular visitation with S.G. DCFS expressed its ongoing concerns that Bonnie lacked

the ability to identify “safe” adults to be around S.G. and herself. The trial court was asked to

continue custody and guardianship with DCFS. The trial court entered its permanency order on

September 20, 2021, later amended on September 22, 2021, finding that the goal remained to return

S.G. home within 12 months. However, the court noted that Bonnie was making little progress and

                                                  6
that there were concerns about her ability to provide S.G. with a safe home. The court continued

custody and guardianship of S.G. with DCFS.

¶ 19   DCFS filed a permanency report on December 13, 2021. Bonnie completed her

psychotherapy assessment through Centerstone with no recommendations for treatment. Bonnie

recently applied for housing at a different site in Carbondale. Bonnie continued to exercise her

visitation with S.G. Following the hearing, on December 16, 2021, the trial court maintained the

same goal of returning S.G. home within 12 months and maintaining custody and guardianship

with DCFS.

¶ 20   DCFS filed its next permanency report on May 12, 2022. Since the previous report and

court hearing, DCFS had started to mandate random drug tests. Bonnie was uncooperative. In order

to submit to a drug test, it was necessary for Bonnie to establish her identity. Bonnie apparently

had no identification and therefore was unable to comply. Bonnie also complained that she needed

more time to get to the service location than was being allowed. Bonnie had successfully moved

to her new apartment, but within a short period of time, the apartment strongly smelled of

ammonia, was littered with trash, dirty dishes, and spoiled food. Food was also found in Bonnie’s

bed and bathroom. Bonnie would remove and discard her used adult diapers throughout the

apartment, and the kitchen and bathroom sinks were being used as trash containers. DCFS noted

that Bonnie simply did not seem to understand these issues as she stated that her home was clean.

ADDUS had provided Bonnie with a habilitation worker, although despite diligent efforts, Bonnie

was unable to maintain cleanliness and personal hygiene. Additionally, the ADDUS worker was

attempting to teach Bonnie cooking skills but noted that the efforts were not successful because

Bonnie struggled to read and comprehend directions on the food packages. In addition to the

hygiene issues, the individuals who were living with Bonnie at the beginning of the case—Crystal

                                                7
and David—were living with her again in the new apartment. Crystal and David reportedly used

methamphetamine and had left their child in Bonnie’s care over a weekend. DCFS noted that while

they wanted to engage in unannounced visits to confirm these reports, the entrance to the

Carbondale apartment building was locked and could only be accessed if a tenant provided access.

Bonnie continued to utilize her supervised visits with S.G. The visits were currently being

supervised by ADDUS workers who reported that Bonnie had no ability to parent S.G. and

described the visits as requiring the workers to “supervise two children.” Because of the

environmental issues within Bonnie’s apartment, ADDUS was directed to have future visits in

community locations. The court’s May 19, 2022, permanency order directed no changes to the

permanency goal and maintained custody and guardianship of S.G. with DCFS.

¶ 21   The next permanency report was filed on August 12, 2022. Bonnie had five random drug

tests from May 20, 2022, through July 27, 2022. All results were negative. The apartment

sanitation issues continued to be a major issue. In addition, DCFS was informed that a child was

seen in Bonnie’s bed. While Bonnie denied that anyone else was staying at her apartment and

informed DCFS that she only sees this child and his or her parents on weekends, DCFS noted that

these people have been seen in her apartment during the week. Habilitation services were closed

out by ADDUS because of Bonnie’s inability to follow basic instructions. Visitation was now

being conducted at a public library. ADDUS noted that Bonnie lacked the knowledge of age

appropriateness and was unable or unwilling to correct negative behaviors exhibited by S.G.

Visitation time was cut from four to two hours weekly. DCFS stated that Bonnie could earn back

the lost two hours “if she can follow A[DDUS] parenting expectations while on supervised visits.”

DCFS also noted that Bonnie had become uncooperative and had started to disallow scheduled

and unscheduled home visits. On one occasion, DCFS heard a television on inside the apartment

                                               8
and heard Bonnie tell a child to “hush,” but Bonnie did not answer the door or answer her phone.

On one occasion, the DCFS worker went to the apartment to conduct a wellness check and

maintenance staff let her in. When the DCFS worker got inside the apartment, she noted that a

child and two adults were in the apartment sleeping. On another occasion, although Bonnie denied

that she was in a romantic relationship with Kent, the DCFS worker found Kent was asleep in

Bonnie’s bed.

¶ 22   On September 6, 2022, the trial court held a permanency hearing. Based upon the report

filed by DCFS, the fact that S.G. had been in foster care for two years, and because the case just

passed the DCFS legal screening process, the trial court changed the permanency goal to substitute

care pending termination of parental rights.

¶ 23   On December 6, 2022, DCFS filed a permanency report. Bonnie continued to test negative

on random drug tests. DCFS visited her apartment in early December 2022 and found that the

conditions of the apartment had not improved. Bonnie became uncooperative with her habilitation

services, and she was unsuccessfully closed out of the program.

¶ 24   On December 14, 2022, DCFS filed a family service plan consistent with the changed

permanency goal. DCFS concluded that Bonnie had made satisfactory progress in obtaining

mental health and psychological assessments, participating in random drug tests, providing signed

consent forms, and participating in supervised visitation with S.G. Bonnie was rated as having

made unsatisfactory progress on all other service plan objectives including parenting classes,

obtaining a domestic violence assessment, provision of appropriate food for S.G. at visits, and

maintenance of a clean and safe residential environment.

¶ 25   On January 19, 2023, DCFS formally filed its petition seeking to terminate Bonnie’s

parental rights. The petition alleged that Bonnie was unfit in that she had failed to maintain a

                                                9
reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to S.G.’s welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b)

(West 2020)) and that she had had failed to make reasonable progress toward S.G.’s return during

any nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect, and specifically between March 1,

2022, to November 30, 2022 (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)).

¶ 26   On April 25, 2023, the trial court held the hearing on the State’s petition to terminate

Bonnie’s parental rights. The State called DCFS child welfare specialist, Gibraltar Taylor, who

testified that the case had been open for three years, and he had been assigned for the last year. He

confirmed that Bonnie had been discharged unsuccessfully from the parenting program; that she

was not always compliant with her random drug screens, completing only 5 of 10 in the past nine

months; and that her home remained unclean and unsafe despite the habilitation worker assigned

to her. In short, Taylor testified that Bonnie was no closer to the return of her child, and that

between March 1, 2022, and November 30, 2022, Bonnie did not successfully complete any

services.

¶ 27   Bonnie also testified at the fitness hearing. She testified that she complied with the random

drug tests. She confirmed that DCFS provided her with a housing advocate but testified that she

found the Carbondale apartment on her own without the advocate’s assistance. Bonnie testified

that at times the water service had been turned off in her apartment. She also sometimes was out

of dishwashing soap, and she could not clean dishes until she had money to buy soap. Bonnie

testified about her payee who pays her bills and puts money into her account. She complained of

the delay between her request for money and her access to the money.

¶ 28   At the conclusion of the fitness hearing, the trial court concluded that Bonnie was unfit

based upon the pleadings and evidence because she had not maintained a reasonable degree of

interest, concern, or responsibility as to S.G.’s welfare (id. § 1(D)(b)), and because she failed to

                                                 10
make reasonable progress toward the return of S.G. to her home during a nine-month period

(March 1, 2022, through November 30, 2022) following the adjudication of neglect (id.

§ 1(D)(m)(ii)).

¶ 29   The trial court next held the best interest hearing. The State called DCFS child welfare

specialist, Gibraltar Taylor, who testified that S.G. was doing well in her foster home. S.G. was

also doing well in school, engaged in extracurricular activities, was happy, and was loved by her

foster parents. Taylor stated that the foster parents were a potential adoptive home. Both parents

were employed, and S.G.’s medical and emotional needs were being met. Taylor testified that S.G.

was then seven years old and had indicated that she wanted to be adopted by her foster parents.

Taylor indicated that in his professional opinion, it was in S.G.’s best interest for Bonnie’s parental

rights to be terminated.

¶ 30   Bonnie also testified at the best interest hearing. She testified that she remained close to

S.G. and that at every visit, S.G. told her that she wanted to spend more time with her and wanted

to come home to live with Bonnie and with her dog, Buddy.

¶ 31   At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence

that it was in S.G.’s best interest to terminate Bonnie’s parental rights. The court placed S.G. in

the guardianship of DCFS and granted the guardian the power to consent to S.G.’s adoption. The

court changed the permanency goal to adoption. Bonnie appeals from the trial court’s orders

finding that she was an unfit parent and terminating her parental rights.

¶ 32                                      II. ANALYSIS

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

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

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

                                                  11
J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329, 337 (2010)). Section 2-29 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 provides the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2020).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                 12
¶ 35                                     A. Fitness Hearing

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

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

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

reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to S.G.’s welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b)

(West 2020)); and (2) that Bonnie failed to make reasonable progress toward S.G.’s return within

the specific nine-month period from March 1, 2022, to November 30, 2022, following the

adjudication of neglect (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

279 (1990)). “In this regard, the court examines the parent’s conduct concerning the child in the

context of the circumstances in which that conduct occurred.” Id. (citing In re Adoption of Syck,

138 Ill. 2d at 278). Circumstances of the parent’s difficulties in completion of plan objectives

                                                   13
and/or in attending visitation, including transportation issues and poverty, are relevant in assessing

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

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

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

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

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

App. 3d at 1064).

¶ 39   While this case began in part with a suspected substance abuse problem, the primary

problem was the safety and cleanliness of housing. Bonnie tested positive for methamphetamine

when S.G. was removed from Bonnie’s care, but she never tested positive again. However,

Bonnie’s housing issues never improved despite access to Adult Protective Services and DCFS

resources.

¶ 40   Bonnie underwent comprehensive psychological testing that revealed extremely low

cognitive, adaptive functioning, and academic abilities. Dr. Hernandez indicated that these deficits

resulted in Bonnie’s difficulty in dealing with daily tasks, that Bonnie would require ongoing

support, and that her ability to independently parent S.G. would be “unlikely and unsafe.” Bonnie

seemingly had no ability to ascertain that other adults who moved into her apartment or requested

money from her were doing so with possible ill intent. At the beginning of the case, a couple who

were addicts were living with Bonnie, even though she was not allowed to have roommates

pursuant to her public housing contract. Later, a couple with a child, believed to be the same

couple, were seen several times in Bonnie’s new apartment. If the caseworker asked Bonnie about

the child or the couple, Bonnie would deny that they were staying with her.

                                                 14
¶ 41   Bonnie was provided with parenting services through Project 12-Ways, and she was also

provided with specialized habilitation services by ADDUS. Bonnie was eventually dropped from

both services. The reasons both Project 12-Ways and ADDUS ended their services were virtually

identical. Bonnie had no ability to retain the most basic of cleaning and cooking information, failed

to keep any portion of the house clean, and used sinks and the floor as repositories for trash,

including used toilet paper and Bonnie’s adult diapers. The filth was made worse by the fact that

Bonnie would not clean dirty dishes, which allowed mold to grow and attracted insects. In addition,

Bonnie had a dog, and workers reported that the home smelled of dog urine. When asked why she

did not follow through with the cleaning training she received from the providers, Bonnie would

cite to a lack of money to buy dishwashing soap and once claimed that her water was shut off.

Bonnie was evicted from the apartment she had when the case began because of the lack of

sanitation, and shortly after moving to the latest apartment, it was also full of trash and debris.

Workers asked Bonnie about the status of her home, but Bonnie seemed to believe that despite the

conditions at issue, the apartment was clean. Given those responses, Bonnie seemingly never

understood what was preventing her from completion of these housing-based services. The fact

that Bonnie did not complete these critical services required by DCFS supports the trial court’s

conclusion that Bonnie did not exhibit a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility

for S.G. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020); In re B’yata I., 2014 IL App (2d) 130558-B, ¶ 31

(citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1065).

¶ 42   Bonnie consistently used her visitation opportunities with S.G. In that respect, Bonnie

seemed to exhibit a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for her daughter. 750

ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020). However, considering the trash and other unclean aspects of

Bonnie’s newest apartment, visitation was moved out of Bonnie’s apartment for S.G.’s safety, and

                                                 15
the number of hours of visitation was decreased. Bonnie was advised that if her apartment could

be brought up to the safety standards relative to cleanliness, she could gain back her extra visitation

hours. However, the state of Bonnie’s apartment never improved, and thus Bonnie’s visitation with

S.G. remained reduced. In addition, the ADDUS supervisors of the visitation sessions were

frustrated by Bonnie’s refusal or inability to maintain control and consistency with S.G. Of note,

the workers found that they were supervising “two children” during those sessions in that Bonnie’s

cognitive disabilities resulted in her own childlike behavior. We are reminded that Bonnie’s

cognitive struggles must be considered in determining if she showed that she had a reasonable

degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for her daughter. In re B’yata I., 2014 IL App (2d)

130558-B, ¶ 31 (citing In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill. 2d at 278-79). As stated earlier in this order,

“[W]e are mindful, however, that a parent is not fit merely because he or she has demonstrated

some interest or affection toward the child.” Id. (citing In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d at 259). We

find that despite Bonnie’s interest in engaging in visitation, the facts of this case support the trial

court’s conclusion that Bonnie did not exhibit a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or

responsibility for S.G. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020).

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

to evaluate the demeanor and testimony of Bonnie and her case specialist, Taylor. In re Za. G.,

2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 31 (citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1064). We conclude

that the trial court’s finding that Bonnie was unfit because she failed to establish a reasonable

degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for S.G. is not against the manifest weight of the

evidence. Id. (citing In re A.W., 231 Ill. 2d at 104).

                                                  16
¶ 44                    2. Reasonable Progress Within a Nine-Month Period

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

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

from the parent. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 47 (citing In re D.T., 2017 IL App (3d)

170120, ¶ 17).

       “ ‘The benchmark for measuring a parent’s reasonable progress under section

       1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act encompasses the parent’s compliance with the service

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

       the child and other conditions which later become known that would prevent the

       court from returning custody of the child to the parent.’ ” Id. (quoting In re D.T.,

       2017 IL App (3d) 170120, ¶ 17).

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

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

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

¶ 46   The foundational issue in this case was the safety and cleanliness of Bonnie’s housing.

DCFS became involved via an intact family case in early 2019. By late June 2020, Bonnie’s

housing situation had deteriorated, and DCFS took S.G. into protective custody.

¶ 47   Here, Bonnie was successful in having the psychological testing and a mental health

assessment. Although she initially tested positive for methamphetamine, she never tested positive

again despite numerous random drug tests. There came a time where Bonnie felt that she was not

being given enough time to arrange for transportation or to obtain a new Illinois identification card,

which was required for the drug tests, and so DCFS marked those tests as missed. However, she

                                                 17
soon began submitting to drug tests again, and as before, all test results were negative. Bonnie was

also consistent with visitation sessions with S.G.

¶ 48   At issue from the time that this case was being labeled as an intact family case in 2019 was

the safety and cleanliness of Bonnie’s apartment. Bonnie’s cognitive difficulties factored into her

inability to understand how to keep her apartment clean, or how to read the directions on boxes for

food preparation purposes. Regardless, Bonnie was aware that she was required to work with the

Project 12-Ways and ADDUS service providers, and yet she could not, or would not, comply with

the standards of cleanliness required to keep S.G. safe.

¶ 49   Additionally, Bonnie had issues with other individuals taking financial advantage of her.

When she stayed in a homeless shelter, she met a couple who eventually moved in with her. The

couple were substance abusers and used Bonnie’s access to money for themselves. Despite the

involvement of the overseer of Bonnie’s money and bills, this couple, and then later the man named

“Johnny” who demanded $500 via a video call during a visitation session, continued to take

financial advantage of Bonnie. Involvement with these opportunistic individuals was part of the

foundational reasons that S.G. was removed from Bonnie’s home, as DCFS was concerned that

S.G. was not living in a safe environment.

¶ 50   Overall, Bonnie’s efforts to correct the housing issues that brought S.G. into this DCFS

case were insufficient. Bonnie’s overall progress on her service plan objectives was nonexistent

during the nine-month period from March 1, 2022, to November 30, 2022. In addition, her

visitation schedule with S.G. was reduced because of these housing and safety concerns.

Reasonable progress is established when the trial court finds that progress “ ‘is sufficiently

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

minor to the parent’s custody.” In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 47 (quoting In re D.T.,

                                                18
2017 IL App (3d) 170120, ¶ 17). In this case, Bonnie was no closer to having S.G. returned to her

custody than she was in late June 2020 when DCFS removed S.G. from her home.

¶ 51    We conclude that the trial court’s order finding that Bonnie failed to show any progress

toward correcting these conditions is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re

A.W., 231 Ill. 2d at 104.

¶ 52                                  B. Best Interest Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

parent is unfit. In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 363 (2004) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745,

760-61 (1982)).

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

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

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

the manifest weight of the evidence standard. In re Jay. H., 395 Ill. App. 3d 1063, 1071 (2009);

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

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

opposite result.” In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 53 (citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill.

App. 3d at 1072). On appeal from an order terminating a parent’s rights, the reviewing court gives

                                                  19
great deference to the trial court’s decision because the trial court was in a much better position to

see the witnesses and judge their credibility. In re K.B., 314 Ill. App. 3d 739, 748 (2000).

¶ 55   “[A]t a best-interests hearing, the parent’s interest in maintaining the parent-child

relationship must yield to the child’s interest in a stable, loving home life.” In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d

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

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

interest. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2020). Another factor the trial court may consider is the

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

¶ 56   During the best interest hearing, Bonnie testified that she remained close to S.G. We do

not have reason to doubt this testimony. However, the trial court found that S.G.’s current foster

home provided a more permanent and appropriate placement, and that the foster parents were

willing to adopt her. The court noted that the foster parents were both employed. S.G. was their

only child, and S.G. had indicated that she wanted to be adopted by her foster parents. DCFS child

welfare specialist, Taylor, testified that S.G. was now seven years old and enrolled in school and

extracurricular activities. Her medical and emotional needs were being met in this placement.

¶ 57   Here, the record clearly establishes that termination of Bonnie’s parental rights was the

appropriate outcome for S.G. S.G.’s safety and stability were of paramount importance, and her

foster parents provided her with both. Further, S.G.’s foster parents plan to adopt her, which will

provide her with permanence. We conclude that the trial court’s decision to terminate Bonnie’s

parental rights was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d 476,

498-99 (2002).

                                                  20
¶ 58                                 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 59    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgments of the circuit court of Jackson County

finding that Bonnie was an unfit parent and that the best interest of S.G. required the termination

of her parental rights.

¶ 60    Affirmed.

                                                21