In re D.T., 2017 IL App (3d) 170120

Child D.T. adjudicated neglected after PCP was found in his umbilical cord/meconium; mother Sehrika S. also tested positive for PCP and cannabis at birth. DCFS made D.T. a ward and implemented a service plan (psychiatric care, substance assessment and random drug drops, parenting class, visitation, stable housing, etc.).
Relevant statutory period for unfitness: nine months from October 30, 2015 through July 30, 2016; during that period the State alleged respondent failed to make reasonable progress under 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii).
During the period, respondent missed many supervised visits (only 2 of 10 between Oct 30, 2015–Feb 2, 2016; attended visits after Feb 9), was incarcerated for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, and had poor counseling attendance leading to discharge.
Respondent missed multiple random drug drops, had at least one positive drug screen during the period, and in July 2016 gave birth to another child with PCP in the umbilical cord. Caseworker testimony documented these failures.
Trial court found respondent unfit by clear and convincing evidence under section 1(D)(m)(ii) and later found termination was in the child’s best interest. Respondent appealed only the unfitness finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent was unfit under 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) for failing to make reasonable progress during the nine-month period	State: clear-and-convincing evidence shows respondent did not substantially comply with the service plan (missed drug drops, counseling discharge, incarceration, positive drug tests, newborn positive for PCP).	Sehrika: she maintained suitable housing, completed parenting class and evaluations, attended visits in latter half, and was not referred to substance-abuse treatment (assessment relied on self-report), so she was misled into believing reunification was possible.	Court affirmed: evidence during the statutory nine-month period supported finding of no reasonable progress; trial court credibility findings deferred to.
Whether respondent was denied due process because State placed her in a position of assured failure by not referring her to substance-abuse treatment	—	Sehrika: lack of referral and reliance on her self-report meant she was prevented from getting treatment and misled about reunification prospects.	Court rejected due-process claim: service plan required assessment (which she completed and self-reported no need); permanency-goal changes signaled lack of progress; no predetermination of outcome.

In re E.B., 231 Ill. 2d 459 (2008) (statutory basis and two-step process for involuntary termination of parental rights)
In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198 (2002) (standards for termination proceedings)
In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181 (2001) (benchmark for reasonable progress under section 1(D)(m))
In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329 (2010) (trial court must look only to evidence during the relevant nine-month period)
In re A.W., 231 Ill. 2d 92 (2008) (deference to trial court credibility findings in fitness determinations)
In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1052 (2006) (objective standard for measuring reasonable progress)
In re Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d 883 (2004) (standard of review and weight afforded to trial court findings)
In re L.L.S., 218 Ill. App. 3d 444 (1991) (reasonable progress requires demonstrable compliance sufficient for return in near future)
Wickham v. Byrne, 199 Ill. 2d 309 (2002) (parental rights are fundamental; due process framework)
In re O.S., 364 Ill. App. 3d 628 (2006) (due-process violation where court actions ensured parent's failure and predestined outcome)