In re K.S.
2022 IL App (4th) 210645-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background
- In April–March 2020 the State adjudicated K.S. (b. 2010) and S.S. (b. 2013) neglected due to domestic violence; respondent Amy S. admitted the neglect allegations.
- November 2020 dispositional order made the children wards and placed custody with DCFS; respondent was found unfit to care for the children.
- Service plans required domestic-violence therapy, mental-health treatment, substance-abuse services, parenting classes, and visits; respondent had a 2019 felony drug conviction and probation prohibiting marijuana use.
- During the second statutory nine‑month period (Dec. 5, 2020–Sept. 4, 2021) the caseworker testified respondent had unsafe housing, failed to complete domestic-violence and mental-health services, continued to test positive for marijuana, and had not achieved unsupervised visits.
- The circuit court found respondent unfit (including under 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) for failing to make reasonable progress) and, after a best‑interests hearing, terminated parental rights; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of reasonable progress during Dec. 5, 2020–Sept. 4, 2021 | Borer's testimony and case records show no demonstrable movement toward reunification (unsafe home, incomplete services, positive drug tests, no unsupervised visits). | Documentary record covered only through July 2021 and thus did not prove the entire nine‑month period. | Evidence (including Borer's testimony covering the full period) supported finding of no reasonable progress; affirmed. |
| Due process: inadequate casework/services in first nine‑month period | State: services were provided and respondent failed to engage. | Respondent: inadequate casework deprived her of due process and impacted fitness finding. | Not addressed on the merits; appellate court affirmed on the dispositive reasonable‑progress ground. |
| Admissibility of State’s exhibit No. 2 (service plan) | Exhibit was proper evidence of services and evaluations. | Exhibit admission was erroneous. | Not reached; decision affirmed on other dispositive ground. |
| Claim that court’s finding regarding reasonable efforts was against manifest weight | State: made reasonable efforts to reunify. | Respondent: efforts were insufficient. | Not addressed on the merits; appellate court affirmed based on failure to make reasonable progress. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Donald A.G., 850 N.E.2d 172 (Ill. 2006) (two‑step termination: clear and convincing standard for unfitness)
- In re D.T., 818 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. 2004) (preponderance standard for best‑interests determination)
- In re Gwynne P., 830 N.E.2d 508 (Ill. 2005) (manifest‑weight review of fitness findings)
- In re Reiny S., 871 N.E.2d 835 (Ill. App. 2007) (definition of reasonable progress; limit proof to relevant nine‑month period)
- In re C.N., 752 N.E.2d 1030 (Ill. 2001) (benchmark for measuring reasonable progress: compliance with service plans)
- In re D.F., 802 N.E.2d 800 (Ill. 2003) (restricting evidence for reasonable‑progress inquiry to the charged period)
- In re L.L.S., 577 N.E.2d 1375 (Ill. App. 1991) (reasonable progress means return in the near future is feasible)
- In re F.P., 19 N.E.3d 227 (Ill. App. 2014) (affirming objective standard for reasonable progress)
- In re Tiffany M., 819 N.E.2d 813 (Ill. App. 2004) (appellate courts may affirm on a dispositive ground and decline to address remaining claims)