Court Opinion

ID: 9819094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:18:26.461859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:28.049692
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring: The majority holds that the proper time frame during which a parent’s conduct is assessed to determine whether the parent is “unfit” is the nine-month period following the trial court’s adjudication of neglect, abuse or dependency. The majority also holds that the nine-month period is applicable whether the parent is found “unfit” because the parent failed to make “reasonable efforts” to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the children, or whether the parent failed to make “reasonable progress” toward the return of the children. See 750 ILCS 50/l(D)(m) (West 2000). Insofar as it applies to a parent’s efforts to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the children, the majority’s holding is contrary to the express language of the statute and to the legislature’s clearly stated intention. Because the majority’s construction of the statutory provision gives short shrift to the work of the legislature, and because the majority does not give due consideration to the interests of the state, the child and the parent in family preservation and reunification, I cannot join this portion of the majority opinion. ANALYSIS The majority opinion must be understood in the context of In re Davonte L., 298 Ill. App. 3d 905 (1998), and the legislative amendment to section 1(D) (m) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/l(D)(m) (West 2000)) that followed. In In re Davonte L., 298 Ill. App. 3d 905, the appellate court held that a parent may be found unfit under section 1(D) (m) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/ 1(D) (m) (West 1994)) for failure to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent within 12 months after an adjudication of neglect.2 The appellate court ruled that the trial court erred in considering the parent’s actions beyond the 12-month period following the adjudication of neglect. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s finding that the parent was fit because that finding was based on the parent’s actions beyond the relevant 12-month period. On appeal, this court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court. In re D.L., 191 Ill. 2d 1 (2000). The court held that, pursuant to section 1(D) (m), a parent is unfit if, within twelve months of an adjudication of neglect, abuse, or dependency, the parent fails to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child or reasonable progress toward the return of the child. In re D.L., 191 Ill. 2d at 10. The evidence that may be considered by the trial court at the fitness hearing is limited to that concerning the parent’s conduct in the twelve months following the adjudication of neglect, abuse, or dependency. In re D.L., 191 Ill. 2d at 10. Because there were several grounds for a finding of unfitness, I filed a separate opinion concurring in the result reached by the majority. However, I disagreed with the holding of the majority that the plain language of section 1(D) (m) limits the evidence that may be considered in a fitness hearing to matters concerning the parent’s conduct in the twelve months following an adjudication of neglect, abuse, or dependency. I noted that, with the exception of In re Davonte L., the various panels of the appellate court that had considered the issue had held that, in determining whether a parent is an “unfit person,” a trial court may consider the parent’s conduct during the entire period of time between the adjudication of neglect, abuse, or dependency and the fitness hearing. In re D.L., 191 Ill. 2d at 14 (Freeman, J., specially concurring), citing In re Latifah P., 307 Ill. App. 3d 558 (1999), withdrawn and republished at 315 Ill. App. 3d 1122 (2000); In re H.C., 305 Ill. App. 3d 869 (1999); In re Y.B., 285 Ill. App. 3d 385 (1996); In re A.P., 277 Ill. App. 3d 592 (1996); In re J.T.C., 273 Ill. App. 3d 193 (1995); In re D.J., 262 Ill. App. 3d 584 (1994); In re S.J., 233 Ill. App. 3d 88 (1992); In re C.R., 221 Ill. App. 3d 373 (1991); In re S.G., 216 Ill. App. 3d 668 (1991); In re M.S., 210 Ill. App. 3d 1085 (1991); In re M.C., 201 Ill. App. 3d 792 (1990); In re A.T., 197 Ill. App. 3d 821 (1990); In re R.S., 174 Ill. App. 3d 132 (1988); In re Allen, 172 Ill. App. 3d 950 (1988); In re Doolan, 101 Ill. App. 3d 322 (1981); In re Edmonds, 85 Ill. App. 3d 229 (1980); In re Austin, 61 Ill. App. 3d 344 (1978). In response to In re Davonte L., 298 Ill. App. 3d 905, the legislature amended the Adoption Act as follows: “D. ‘Unfit person’ means any person whom the court shall find to be unfit to have a child, without regard to the likelihood that the child will be placed for adoption. The grounds of unfitness are any one or more of the following: * * * (m) Failure by a parent (i) to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child from the parent, or (ii) to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent within 9 months after an adjudication of neglected or abused minor under Section 2 — 3 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 or dependent minor under Section 2 — 4 of that Act, or (Hi) to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent during any 9-month period after the end of the initial 9-month period following the adjudication of neglected or abused minor under Section 2 — 3 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 or dependent minor under Section 2 — 4 of that Act. If a service plan has been established as required under Section 8.2 of the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child from the parent and if those services were available, then, for purposes of this Act, ‘failure to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent’ includes (I) the parent’s failure to substantially fulfill his or her obligations under the service plan and correct the conditions that brought the child into care within 9 months after the adjudication under Section 2 — 3 or 2 — 4 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 and (II) the parent’s failure to substantially fulfill his or her obligations under the service plan and correct the conditions that brought the child into care during any 9-month period after the end of the initial 9-month period following the adjudication under Section 2 — 3 or 2 — 4 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987.” (Emphasis in original.) Pub. Act 91 — 0373, § 5, eff. January 1, 2000 (codified at 750 ILCS 50/ 1(D)(m) (West 2000)). Although brief, the legislative history on the amendment contains the following statement: “SENATOR KARPIEL: *** House Bill 1298 amends the Adoption Act. It amends the grounds of parental unfitness to include failure to make reasonable progress toward the return of a child to the parent during any nine-month period after the end of the initial nine-month period following the adjudication of the child as neglected, abused or a dependent. At present under the Adoption Act, they — the court can only use evidence in the nine-month period from the adjudication to the filing period of termination. And since the termination hearing sometimes isn’t till maybe a year later, the court would really like to hear — be able to hear evidence during the other — the rest of the period. This can be good or bad for a — a parent. Sometimes that first nine-month period, perhaps they don’t really get their act together too well, and then they — at the termination hearing, the court can only use a bad evidence of — of their fitness for being a parent, or it can be that they start out good and then they start — start to slowly go back to their old bad ways and that’s not so good for the kids. So either way, but the court would like to be able to use the entire time, look at the evidence during that entire period. And that’s all the bill does.” 91st Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, May 6, 1999, 37-38 (statements of Senator Karpiel). Senator Karpiel’s statement reflects the legislature’s understanding that, prior to In re Davonte L., the courts considered evidence of reasonable progress made by a parent between the adjudication of neglect and the filing of the petition for termination of parental rights. The statement also reflects the legislature’s intention that the Adoption Act be amended to allow the courts to consider evidence of reasonable progress made by the parent during any nine-month period between the adjudication of neglect and the date of the termination hearing. The legislature wanted to protect the parent who failed to make progress during the initial nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect, but made reasonable progress during any subsequent nine-month period. At the same time, the legislature wanted to protect the child whose parent made progress during the initial nine-month period but reverted to negative behavior in any subsequent nine-month period. In the present case, this court is, once again, interpreting the language of section l(D)(m). The trial court found respondent unfit in that she failed to make “reasonable efforts” to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the children and failed to make “reasonable progress” toward the return of the children. See 750 ILCS 50/l(D)(m) (West 2000). In finding respondent unfit, the trial court only considered evidence of respondent’s efforts and progress during the nine-month period following the adjudication of abuse and neglect. On appeal, respondent argues that evidence of her efforts to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the children should not be limited to the nine-month period prescribed for a parent’s progress toward the return of a child. Respondent also argues that both the trial court’s finding of unfitness based upon respondent’s failure to make “reasonable efforts” and respondent’s failure to make “reasonable progress” are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The majority agrees that “[a] plain language or literal reading of section 1(D) (m) supports respondent’s position that the nine-month evaluation period applies only to a parent’s reasonable progress and not a parent’s reasonable efforts.” 208 Ill. 2d at 230. However, the majority notes this court “is not bound by the literal language of a statute that produces a result inconsistent with clearly expressed legislative intent, or that yields absurd or unjust consequences not contemplated by the legislature.” 208 Ill. 2d at 230. Next, the majority notes that a “stated purpose of the Juvenile Court Act is to secure permanency for minors who have been removed from the custody of their parents, ‘at the earliest opportunity.’ 705 ILCS 405/1 — 2(1) (West 2000).” 208 Ill. 2d at 231. The majority then holds that “[a] literal reading of section 1(D) (m) yields a result inconsistent with the legislature’s statements of public policy and purpose contained in both the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/ 1 — 1 et seq. (West 2000)) and the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/0.01 et seq. (West 2000)).” 208 Ill. 2d at 230. In arriving at its holding, the majority necessarily rejects respondent’s argument that the legislature intended to effectuate a change in the evidence of unfitness that a trial court may consider. Initially, the majority notes: “Respondent places great weight on the addition of the Roman numerals, which function similarly to traditional punctuation in a statute. The punctuation of a statute, however, is subordinate to its text.” 208 Ill. 2d at 234. The majority then claims that, in amending the statute, the legislature only wanted to add an additional ground of unfitness, that is, failure to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child during any nine-month period after the end of the initial nine-month period. 208 Ill. 2d at 234. The legislature did not intend to remove the requirement that a parent make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child during the initial nine-month period. 208 Ill. 2d at 237. Since the majority arrives at its holding by application of the “absurd results” doctrine, I note there are limitations to the use of the doctrine. As the West Virginia Supreme Court explained in Taylor-Hurley v. Mingo County Board of Education, 209 W. Va. 780, 788, 551 S.E.2d 702, 710 (2001), “[t]he absurd results doctrine merely permits a court to favor an otherwise reasonable construction of the statutory text over a more literal interpretation where the latter would produce a result demonstrably at odds with any conceivable legislative purpose. [Citation.] It does not, however, license a court to simply ignore or rewrite statutory language on the basis that, as written, it produces an undesirable policy result.” I also note the cautionary statement in Sutherland on Statutory Construction that “the absurd results doctrine should be used sparingly because it entails the risk that the judiciary will displace legislative policy on the basis of speculation that the legislature could not have meant what it unmistakably said.” 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 46:07, at 199 (6th ed. 2000). In the present case, I submit that the result the majority seeks to avoid is not “demonstrably at odds” with the purposes and goals of the legislature in amending the Adoption Act. I also submit there is nothing “absurd” in allowing the trial court to consider all evidence of a parent’s efforts to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the children. In these proceedings, as in all other truth-seeking proceedings, it is of great import that the trial court access and consider relevant evidence. Lastly, I submit that the majority is displacing legislative policy on the basis of speculation. In my estimation, the majority fails to give due consideration to the change the legislature intended in amending section l(D)(m). Section 1(D) (m)(i), the provision concerning a parent’s “reasonable efforts,” does not refer to a particular time period. Contrarily, sections l(D)(m)(ii) and l(D)(m)(iii), the provisions concerning a parent’s “reasonable progress,” both refer to a time period for assessment of the parent’s conduct. “Where one section of a statute contains a particular provision, omission of the same provision from a similar section is significant to show different legislative intent for the two sections.” 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 46:07, at 202-04 (6th ed. 2000). It is also a maxim of statutory construction that “an amendatory change in the language of a statute creates a presumption that it was intended to change the law as it theretofore existed.” Weast Construction Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 102 Ill. 2d 337, 340 (1984). As this court explained in Modern Dairy Co. v. Department of Revenue, 413 Ill. 55, 66 (1952), “When this court construes a statute and that construction is not interfered with by the legislature, it is presumed that such construction is in harmony with the legislative intent. [Citation.] Conversely, if the legislature, after the courts construe the terms used in an act, attempts by amendment to define those terms as used in that act, the reasonable presumption is that the court’s construction was not in accord with the original intent of the legislature. [Citations.] It would then seem incumbent upon the court to reconsider its construction of the act and, if it appeared to be clearly at variance with the interpretation of the legislature, tp harmonize the court’s construction with the legislative intent.” More recently, in Collins v. Board of Trustees of Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 155 Ill. 2d 103, 111 (1993), this court noted that “[a]n amendment that contradicts a recent interpretation of a statute is an indication that such interpretation was incorrect and that the amendment was enacted to clarify the legislature’s original intent.” In Davonte L., the appellate court sharply restricted the evidence that the trial court could consider in a determination of unfitness. The legislature responded to the ruling by removing the time limitations for evidence of a parent’s reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child and allowing the trial court to consider evidence of a parent’s reasonable progress toward the return of the child during any nine-month period between the adjudication of neglect or abuse and the fitness hearing. The majority should not undo the work of the legislature under the guise of statutory construction. The majority concedes that a literal reading of section 1(D) (m) supports the conclusion that the legislature removed any time limitation on evidence of a parent’s “reasonable efforts” to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child. Further, given the legislature’s concern, as expressed in Senator Karpiel’s statement, that the trial court be able to review all evidence concerning a parent’s “reasonable progress,” a reasonable interpretation of the amendment is that the legislature also intended that the trial court be able to review all evidence concerning a parent’s efforts to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child. In spite of its concession regarding the language of the amendment, the majority dismisses respondent’s argument that the legislature intended to effectuate a change in section l(D)(m). Without citation to authority, the majority asserts that Roman numerals function similarly to traditional punctuation in a statute. Then, citing Smith v. County of Logan, 284 Ill. 163, 171-72 (1918), the majority observes that the punctuation of a statute is subordinate to its text. 208 Ill. 2d at 234. I note that at least one court would attach significance to the insertion of Roman numerals in a statute. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Nernberg, 3 F.3d 62 (3d Cir. 1993). I also note that Smith is not as supportive as claimed, when the proposition for which it is cited is viewed in context. In Smith, 284 Ill. 163, the court considered whether the State’s Attorney for a county with more than 30,000 but less than 51,000 inhabitants was entitled to receive the sum of $3,500 as compensation from the county as provided by statute, and an additional sum of $400 from the state. The statute provided as follows: “To each State’s attorney in counties not exceeding 30,000 inhabitants, the sum of $100.00 per each 1,000 inhabitants and major fraction thereof, the said salary to be in addition to that now provided by law to be paid by the State: Provided, however, that the maximum sum to be paid any State’s attorney in any of such counties shall not exceed the sum of $2,500.00 per annum. To each State’s attorney in counties containing not less than 30,000 inhabitants and not more than 51,000 inhabitants, the sum of $3,500.00 per annum; to each State’s attorney in counties containing not less than 51,000 inhabitants and not more than 100,000 inhabitants, the sum of $5,000.00 per annum in the aggregate, which sum shall include the salary which is to be paid out of the State treasury as now provided by law; to each State’s attorney in counties containing not less than 100,000 inhabitants and not more than 250,000 inhabitants, the sum of $6,000.00 per annum; to each State’s attorney in counties of more than 250,000 inhabitants, the sum of $10,000.00 per annum.” 1911-12, Ill. Law 89. In holding that the statutory provision for compensation for a State’s Attorney of a county containing more than 30,000 but less than 51,000 inhabitants did not include the $400 paid by the state, the court reasoned: “Counsel for defendant in error furthér argue that the statute, in referring to the second and third classes, should be read together, and that the word ‘sum’ in connection with the third class should be read ‘sums,’ and if so read it will clearly refer to counties both of the second and of the third class. Such a construction of the wording of the act is not a natural one and is contrary to the punctuation found therein. There is a semicolon between the wording which refers to the second class of counties and that referring to the third class of counties immediately following. The punctuation of a law adopted by the legislature, while it remains subordinate to the text and is not necessarily controlling in determining the legislative intent, certainly ought not to be totally disregarded, unless on inspection of the whole act it is apparent that it must be, in order to reach the real intent of the legislature. [Citation.] It is obvious from a mere reading of this statute that to disregard this punctuation would be contrary to what seems to be the plain legislative intent. If we are to give any force to the argument that all parts of the present statute should be taken into consideration as well as the previous legislation on this subject, it will be fair to assume that the legislature would surely give as much attention to the reading of the present statute as it would to the wording and reading of previous legislation on this subject. It would seem to be self-evident that the legislature, in referring specifically to the $400 to be paid by the State as to two classes of counties, must have had in mind the question whether the $400 was to be included or excluded in the total salary to be paid to the State’s attorneys in the various classes of counties, and it seems the most reasonable conclusion to hold that the legislature, in including specifically this $400 as a part of the salary in two classes of counties and being silent as to whether or not it should be included in the other three classes of counties, did not intend to have it included in said three classes in which it was not mentioned.” Smith, 284 Ill. at 171-72. In the present case, the statute is divided clearly by the use of commas and Roman numerals between the different grounds for a finding of unfitness. To hold, as the majority does, that the nine-month time period applies to the “reasonable efforts” grounds is to totally disregard the punctuation of the statute. Further, the fact that the legislature included a time limitation for a parent’s failure to make “reasonable progress” toward the return of the children shows that the legislature had in mind the question as to the appropriate time limitation in the termination of a parent’s rights. As in Smith, the most logical conclusion is that the legislature, in including specifically a time limitation for a parent’s failure to make “reasonable progress” toward the return of the children, and being silent as to a time limitation for a parent’s failure to make “reasonable efforts” to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the children, did not intend to impose a time limitation for the “reasonable efforts” ground of unfitness. Unlike the majority, I believe that the nine-month time period does not apply to a parent’s “reasonable efforts” to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the children. I note this construction of the statute is consistent with the remaining provisions of section l(D)(m). The section provides: “If a service plan has been established as required under Section 8.2 of the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child from the parent and if those services were available, then, for purposes of this Act, ‘failure to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent’ includes (I) the parent’s failure to substantially fulfill his or her obligations under the service plan and correct the conditions that brought the child into care within 9 months after the adjudication under Section 2 — 3 or 2 — 4 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 and (II) the parent’s failure to substantially fulfill his or her obligations under the service plan and correct the conditions that brought the child into care during any 9-month period after the end of the initial 9-month period following the adjudication under Section 2 — 3 or 2 — 4 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987.” Pub. Act 91 — 0373, § 5 eff. January 1, 2000 (codified at 750 ILCS 50/l(D)(m) (West 2000). In other words, if a service plan has not been established under section 8.2 of the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child or if a service plan is established but recommended services are not available to the parent, the parent’s failure to make “reasonable efforts” to correct the conditions, either during the initial nine-month period or any subsequent nine-month period, cannot be equated with the failure to make “reasonable progress” toward the return of the child. The time period comes into play only where a service plan is established and services are provided to the parent. The interpretation advanced in the majority opinion is largely based upon the desire to minimize delay in the placement of the child in a permanent setting. Delay, however, is not the only consideration in a proceeding where the State seeks the appointment of a guardian with the right to consent to adoption. Parental rights are at issue and the fundamental nature of these rights requires just consideration. The Supreme Court so explained in M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 136 L. Ed. 2d 473, 117 S. Ct. 555 (1996), a recent case involving the termination of parental rights: “Significant to the disposition of M.L.B.’s case, the Lassiter [v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 68 L. Ed. 2d 640, 101 S. Ct. 2153 (1981)] Court considered it ‘plain ... that a parent’s desire for and right to “the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children” is an important interest,’ one that ‘ “undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” ’ Id,., at 27 (quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972)). The object of the proceeding is ‘not simply to infringe upon [the parent’s] interest,’ the Court recognized, ‘but to end it’; thus, a decision against the parent ‘work[s] a unique kind of deprivation.’ Lassiter, 452 U.S., at 27. For that reason, ‘[a] parent’s interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision ... is ... a commanding one.’ Ibid.; see also id., at 39 (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (‘A termination of parental rights is both total and irrevocable. Unlike other custody proceedings, it leaves the parent with no right to visit or communicate with the child ... .’ (footnote omitted)). Santosky [v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 102 S. Ct. 1388 (1982)] held that a ‘clear and convincing’ proof standard is constitutionally required in parental termination proceedings. Id., at 769-770. In so ruling, the Court again emphasized that a termination decree is ‘final and irrevocable.’ 455 U.S. at 759 (emphasis in original). ‘Few forms of state action,’ the Court said, ‘are both so severe and so irreversible.’ Ibid. As in Lassiter, the Court characterized the parent’s interest as ‘commanding,’ indeed, ‘far more precious than any property right.’ 455 U.S., at 758-759. Although both Lassiter and Santosky yielded divided opinions, the Court was unanimously of the view that ‘the interest of parents in their relationship with their children is sufficiently fundamental to come within the finite class of liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.’ 455 U.S., at 774 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). It was also the Court’s unanimous view that ‘[flew consequences of judicial action are so grave as the severance of natural family ties.’ Id., at 787.” M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. at 117-19, 136 L. Ed. 2d at 488-89, 117 S. Ct. at 564-65. In the present case, the majority is concerned, as it should be, with the potential delays in the adoption of respondent’s children. The majority, however, must be equally concerned with respondent’s interest in the care, custody, and control of her children. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49, 56, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 2060 (2000). As the Supreme Court observed in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551, 558, 92 S. Ct. 1208, 1212 (1972), “the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children ‘come to [the courts] with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements.’ [Citation.]” I note that family reunification, consistent with the health, safety and best interests of the child, is a goal of the Juvenile Court Act. 705 ILCS 405/2 — 14(a) (West 2000). In furtherance of that goal, and in light of the irrevocable nature of the termination of the parent-child relationship, the trial court should consider all evidence of a parent’s efforts to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child. I also note that delay in permanent placement may flow directly from decisions made by the Department of Children and Family Services. In the present case, the trial court entered an order on June 16, 1995, finding that the children were abused and neglected. The State waited until November 1, 1999, to file a supplemental petition for the appointment of a guardian with the right to consent to the children’s adoption. CONCLUSION I cannot join fully in today’s opinion because the majority’s construction of the statute is contrary to the legislature’s intention in amending the statute and is contraindicated by the express language of the statute. While I understand, and fully support, the goal of minimizing the time a child spends in foster care and the time it takes to process a child’s adoption into a loving home, I also understand the value of family ties and family reunification. Where it may be in one child’s interest to be adopted quickly into a waiting adoptive family, it may be in another child’s interest to heal family wounds, correct the conditions that led to the separation of the family, arm the parents with new skills to help in their parenting efforts and reunite the child and parents into a family unit. Our legislature is in the best position to make a determination based on social goals as to how long efforts at reunification should take and how quickly parenting rights may be terminated. Unfortunately, in its rush to remedy the delays associated with foster care placement and the adoption process, the majority has created social legislation incompatible with the goals our legislature seeks to pursue and the delicate balance our legislature has reached between the child’s right to placement in a loving home, whether familial or adoptive, the parent’s right to reunification where possible, and the state’s interest in protecting and caring for a ward of the State. I cannot join the majority in its usurpation of the role of the legislature. CHIEF JUSTICE McMORROW joins in this special concurrence.   2The 12-month period was shortened to nine months effective June 25, 1997. Pub. Act 90 — 28, eff. June 25, 1997.