In re K.S.
2022 IL App (4th) 210644-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background
- Two children (K.S., b. May 2010; S.S., b. Sept. 2013) were adjudicated neglected based on parents’ domestic violence; children made wards of the court and DCFS was appointed guardian/custodian.
- Respondent George S. was convicted of domestic battery (offense June 19, 2019) and incarcerated until November 24, 2020; dispositional report rated him unsatisfactory on parenting/contact.
- State moved to terminate parental rights (Aug. 2021), alleging respondent failed to make reasonable efforts and failed to make reasonable progress toward reunification during two statutory nine‑month periods (Mar 6, 2020–Dec 5, 2020; Dec 5, 2020–Sept 4, 2021).
- At the Oct. 28, 2021 fitness hearing the State introduced caseworker testimony, service plans/evaluations, contact notes, and the conviction; evidence showed no services completed during incarceration, little-to-no contact with children, no stable legal income, and no completed assessments by end of the first nine‑month period.
- The trial court found respondent unfit on all alleged grounds and, after a best‑interests hearing at which respondent offered no evidence, found termination of his parental rights was in the children’s best interests.
- On appeal respondent challenged the fitness finding; the appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court’s unfitness finding (failure to make reasonable progress for Mar 6–Dec 5, 2020) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and did not address other unfitness bases or the best‑interests ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent was unfit for failure to make reasonable progress during any nine‑month period (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii)) | State: respondent failed to make demonstrable movement toward reunification in the alleged nine‑month periods, citing service plans, contact notes, and conviction/incarceration | George: incarceration and COVID restrictions limited access to programs; he made contact after release and planned to seek disability but had not completed services during period | Affirmed: court’s finding respondent failed to make reasonable progress for Mar 6–Dec 5, 2020 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | State: terminating parental rights served children’s best interests based on stability and lack of progress | George: no developed best‑interests argument on appeal | Affirmed: trial court’s best‑interests finding left unchallenged on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Donald A.G., 850 N.E.2d 172 (defining the two‑step termination process: fitness by clear and convincing evidence, then best interests by preponderance)
- In re D.T., 818 N.E.2d 1214 (best‑interests burden and standard)
- In re Gwynne P., 830 N.E.2d 508 (deference to trial court on fitness findings)
- In re J.L., 924 N.E.2d 961 (time in prison does not toll the statutory nine‑month period)
- In re C.N., 752 N.E.2d 1030 (benchmarks for measuring reasonable progress and compliance with service plans)
- In re Reiny S., 871 N.E.2d 835 (limit proof of progress to the alleged nine‑month period)
- In re Daphnie E., 859 N.E.2d 123 (distinguishing reasonable efforts and reasonable progress; objective vs. subjective standards)
- In re L.L.S., 577 N.E.2d 1375 (reasonable progress defined as foreseeably returning children in the near future)
- In re E.S., 756 N.E.2d 422 (trial court’s advantage in assessing witness credibility)