In re C.H., 2017 IL App (3d) 160729

The State filed a two-count neglect petition alleging C.H. suffered medical neglect and was in an injurious environment; petition named Ricky H. as the father.
C.H. was removed and placed with Ricky’s parents; Ricky executed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity in March 2016 and was later found to be the legal father.
The trial court found C.H. neglected but found Ricky fit and not responsible for the injurious environment.
At disposition, Ricky had complied with services (visitation, counseling, parenting class, voluntary drug tests), had housing and employment, and was available to care for C.H.; the court nonetheless ordered continued foster placement citing concerns Ricky minimized C.H.’s medical needs.
Ricky appealed the dispositional order arguing the court lacked authority to keep C.H. in DCFS custody after finding him a fit parent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court could continue C.H.’s placement with DCFS after finding Ricky fit	The State argued continued placement was necessary for C.H.’s safety given medical concerns	Ricky argued that once found fit (and not unwilling/unable), the court could not place the child with a third party under section 2‑27(1)	Reversed: court erred; after finding Ricky fit and not unable/unwilling, it lacked authority to keep C.H. in DCFS custody

In re M.M., 2016 IL 119932 (Illinois Supreme Court) (section 2‑27(1) does not permit third‑party placement absent findings parent is unfit, unable, or unwilling)
In re K.L.S‑P., 383 Ill. App. 3d 287 (Ill. App. Ct.) (finding of fitness necessarily means fit to care without endangering health or safety)
In re R.W., 371 Ill. App. 3d 1171 (Ill. App. Ct.) (parent is either fit or unfit)
In re Madison H., 215 Ill. 2d 364 (Ill. 2005) (trial court should make explicit, specific findings when remanding for disposition)