In re Jeanette L.
2017 IL App (1st) 161944
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2010 the State filed juvenile abuse/neglect petitions concerning then-15-month-old Jeanette L.; she was adjudicated abused/neglected and made a ward of the court in 2011–2012 and placed under DCFS guardianship.
- The State later sought termination of parental rights (2014 supplemental petition), alleging parents Georgina L. and Clarence M. were unfit under multiple statutory grounds including failure to make reasonable progress, lack of interest, desertion (Clarence), and developmental disability (Georgina).
- DCFS and SOS records showed Georgina had cognitive/developmental delays, was illiterate, missed or refused individual therapy, was frequently late and inappropriate during supervised visits, and did not complete recommended services.
- Records and testimony showed Clarence had sporadic visitation, did not complete required therapy or psychiatric evaluation, moved away, told the caseworker he would not pursue services, and expressed no desire to reunify.
- The trial court found Georgina unfit under sections addressing reasonable progress and reasonable degree of interest (but not the developmental-disability ground) and found Clarence unfit on all alleged grounds; the court terminated both parents’ rights after a best-interests hearing.
- On appeal Georgina argued the State violated the ADA by failing to provide reasonable accommodations for her developmental disability; Clarence’s counsel filed a Finley motion to withdraw, asserting no arguable issues on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by terminating parental rights because DCFS failed to provide ADA accommodations to Georgina | Georgina: DCFS/services were not reasonably accommodated to her developmental disability in violation of the ADA | State: ADA does not apply to parental-termination proceedings; even if considered, Georgina failed services and visitation independent of any accommodation issue | Forfeited (not raised below). On merits, ADA defense rejected — termination proceedings are not ADA-covered "services, programs, or activities;" alternatively, overwhelming evidence supported unfitness under reasonable-progress and interest grounds |
| Whether Georgina’s developmental disability required finding of unfitness under the statute | Georgina: inability to complete services due to disability should preclude finding of unfitness | State: developmental disability is a statutory ground only if inability to parent will extend beyond a reasonable time; here court did not rely on that ground and evidence showed failure to progress | Court declined to rely on disability ground; found sufficient evidence of failure to complete services and irregular visitation to support unfitness under other statutory grounds |
| Whether the trial court’s unfitness findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence | Georgina: (implicitly) evidence of disability and offered accommodations meant findings were erroneous | State: record showed missed sessions, refusal of therapy, inappropriate visitation, and refusal to engage with services | Court: findings were not against manifest weight; evidence supported statutory unfitness findings |
| Whether appellate counsel for Clarence may withdraw under Finley | Clarence: no proffered arguments after notice | Counsel: no arguable issues on appeal | Appellate court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed trial court — no issues of arguable merit found |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 24 Ill. App. 2d 204 (Ill. App. 1960) (forfeiture doctrine — trial court should have opportunity to correct errors)
- 1010 Lake Shore Ass’n v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 2015 IL 118372 (Ill. 2015) (forfeiture rules encourage raising issues at trial)
- People v. Denson, 2014 IL 116231 (Ill. 2014) (discussing purposes of forfeiture doctrine)
- In re D.D., 196 Ill. 2d 405 (Ill. 2001) (standard for manifest-weight review in parental-termination cases)
- In re Konstantinos H., 387 Ill. App. 3d 192 (Ill. App. 2008) (failure to comply with service plan may support unfitness under reasonable-progress provision)
- In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d 239 (Ill. App. 2004) (same; construing subsection regarding reasonable progress)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987) (procedural standard allowing appellate counsel to move to withdraw when no arguable issues exist)
- In re M.I., 2016 IL 120232 (Ill. 2016) (Illinois Supreme Court: inability to complete tasks beyond intellectual capacity is not a statutory exception to unfitness findings)