In re adoption of P.J.H.
143 N.E.3d 805
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Petitioners Benjamin Gossard and Cheryl Hurst sought to terminate Kohl Bertels’s parental rights so Benjamin could adopt Cheryl’s daughter P.J.H. (born 2014). Petition alleged Kohl failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility and had abandoned/neglected the child.
- Kohl, incarcerated at times and with multiple felony burglary convictions (2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016), filed an answer and was represented by counsel; a guardian ad litem recommended termination.
- At the February 22, 2019 evidentiary hearing Kohl admitted limited, sporadic contact: last in-person contact disputed (2015–2016), some phone calls from prison, no child support ever paid, and attempted gifts (Angel Tree). He asserted drug-related criminality, had completed rehabilitative programs and GED in prison, and would seek involvement after release.
- Cheryl testified Kohl’s visitation and contact were minimal, that he ceased seeing the child after about her first birthday, and that visitation requests were sometimes conditioned on his girlfriend’s availability; she cited substance abuse concerns as justification to deny visits.
- The trial court declined to find Kohl “depraved” despite his felonies (crediting rehabilitation) but found by clear and convincing evidence that Kohl failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility under 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b). The court also found termination served the child’s best interests. Kohl appealed only the unfitness finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kohl was unfit under 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility) | Petitioners: Kohl’s contact was insufficient; he neglected/abandoned the child and supports termination | Kohl: he maintained some contact (birthday party, visits when not incarcerated, calls, gifts); incarceration and mother’s obstruction limited his ability to establish paternity/visitation | Court: Affirmed — evidence supports finding Kohl failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility (not against manifest weight of evidence) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181 (Ill. 2001) (standard for reviewing parental-unfitness findings and deference to trial court)
- In re Gwynne P., 215 Ill. 2d 340 (Ill. 2005) (each parental-fitness case is fact-specific)
- In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198 (Ill. 2002) (each statutory ground of unfitness is independent; affirm if any ground supported)
- In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1052 (Ill. App. 2006) (trial court’s advantage in assessing witnesses and credibility)
- In re M.A., 325 Ill. App. 3d 387 (Ill. App. 2001) (appellate court will not reweigh credibility)
- In re E.O., 311 Ill. App. 3d 720 (Ill. App. 2000) (reasonable—not merely some—interest/concern required for parental fitness)
- In re M.I., 2016 IL 120232 (Ill. 2016) (parental interest must be reasonable)
- Perkins v. Breitbarth, 99 Ill. App. 3d 135 (Ill. App. 1981) (distinguished; there father’s failure to pay support was sole basis and efforts to visit were found reasonable)