In re H.S.
2016 IL App (1st) 161589
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- DCFS removed H.S. (b. 2011) and E.S. (b. 2010) from mother Soleil S. (S.S.) after police found the children alone in a deteriorated home with drugs; J.R. is father of H.S.
- S.S. repeatedly admitted drug use and psychiatric issues; she failed to complete recommended services and relapsed after treatment; domestic violence between S.S. and J.R. was documented.
- Children were placed with foster mother Venita Allen in May 2012 and remained bonded to that home; permanency goals shifted to substitute care pending termination proceedings.
- State filed petitions (ground (b) and (m)) to terminate S.S.’s parental rights to both children and J.R.’s rights to H.S.; after hearings the trial court found S.S. and J.R. unfit and terminated their rights (May 12, 2016).
- J.R. appealed contesting unfitness and best-interest findings; S.S. appealed solely arguing the court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) notice/transfer requirements.
- Appellate court affirmed J.R.’s unfitness and best-interest termination as to H.S., but vacated both parents’ termination orders and remanded to require a factual determination whether H.S. and E.S. are "Indian children" under ICWA and to proceed accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether J.R. was unfit under Adoption Act grounds (m) and (b) | State: J.R. failed to make reasonable efforts/progress and maintained injurious environment by staying with S.S. | J.R.: Completed substance-abuse and domestic-violence programs, negative drug tests, regular visitation shows progress | Court: Affirmed unfitness under (m); evidence supports failure to correct conditions and insufficient progress |
| Whether termination of J.R.’s parental rights was in H.S.’s best interest | State: Child bonded to foster home, needs (ADHD, therapy) are met by foster parent; placing both siblings together favored | J.R.: Stable employment, sober, parenting consistent, bonded to child | Court: Affirmed termination — child’s primary attachment to foster parent and stability weighed for termination |
| Whether ICWA notice/transfer requirements were satisfied for S.S. (and children) | State: Introduced return receipts and tribe responses; court found ICWA inapplicable based on those responses | S.S.: She informed court of multiple tribal ancestry; State didn’t show notices were sent to all tribes S.S. claimed or file the actual notices | Court: Vacated termination orders and remanded for factual determination whether children are "Indian children"; ICWA procedures not sufficiently followed |
| Remedy when ICWA procedures are deficient but tribal status unresolved | State: Responses from some tribes show ICWA not applicable; proceedings should stand | S.S.: Absent proper notice to all claimed tribes and a factual finding of non-Indian status, orders invalid | Court: Vacated termination orders and remanded to make factual finding of Indian-child status and then proceed—if non-Indian, reinstate terminations; if Indian, restart ICWA-compliant proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.R., 393 Ill. App. 3d 609 (discussing burden for involuntary termination and best-interest review)
- In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d 476 (standards for appellate review of fitness findings and sufficiency of single statutory ground)
- In re Deandre D., 405 Ill. App. 3d 945 (manifest-weight standard for termination findings)
- In re M.F., 326 Ill. App. 3d 1110 (best-interest analysis after parental unfitness)
- In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181 (ICWA violations may invalidate state custody proceedings)
- In re B.S., 317 Ill. App. 3d 650 (definition and evaluation of ‘‘earnest and conscientious strides’’ for reasonable efforts)