In re Brandon K.
2017 IL App (2d) 170075
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Father (S.K.) was convicted by jury of first-degree murder of the childrens’ mother (asphyxiation) and sentenced to 30 years; direct criminal appeal pending.
- DCFS removed the three minor children (born 2004, 2007, 2008) and placed them with maternal grandfather; children adjudicated dependent and made wards of the court.
- The State filed petitions to terminate S.K.’s parental rights; trial court found S.K. unfit on multiple statutory grounds, including depravity based on the murder conviction and failure to make reasonable efforts/progress during a nine-month period in 2015–2016.
- Trial court denied S.K.’s motion to stay termination proceedings pending his criminal appeal and later found termination to be in the children’s best interests; S.K. appealed only the unfitness finding.
- Appellate court limited review to unfitness (S.K. did not challenge best interests) and applied de novo review to statutory interpretation questions and manifest-weight standard to factual unfitness findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (S.K.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction for first‑degree murder creates a statutory presumption of parental depravity under 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i) that may be applied before criminal appeals are exhausted | Statute’s plain language creates a rebuttable presumption of depravity upon conviction; conviction here meets statutory definition | Presumption should not apply until all criminal appeals are exhausted; conviction alone (one offense) is insufficient absent proof of repetitive or especially heinous conduct | Court held the statute unambiguously creates the presumption upon conviction and may be applied without awaiting exhaustion of appeals; upheld depravity finding |
| Whether the evidence rebutted the presumption of depravity by clear and convincing evidence | Presumption was unrebutted based on the murder conviction and related record | Argued one conviction and asphyxiation alone do not prove inherent depravity or moral deficiency | Court found no clear-and-convincing rebuttal and that the unfitness finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Donald A.G., 221 Ill. 2d 234 (Ill. 2006) (Adoption Act does not require courts to defer unfitness findings related to criminal matters until appellate process is exhausted)
- In re Haley D., 2011 IL 110886 (Ill. 2011) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest; termination is drastic and governed by statutory standards)
- In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347 (Ill. 2004) (at best‑interests stage child’s need for stability outweighs parent’s interest in relationship)
- In re Antwan L., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1119 (Ill. App. Ct.) (one properly proven statutory ground is sufficient for unfitness finding)
- In re C.M.J., 278 Ill. App. 3d 885 (Ill. App. Ct.) (conviction of murdering the other parent supports unfitness and termination unless rebutted)