In re Nicholas C.
2017 IL App (1st) 162101
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Mother Mandi C. appealed the circuit court’s finding she was unfit and the termination of her parental rights to sons Nathan (b. 2006, autistic) and Nicholas (b. 2010, suffered abusive head trauma as an infant).
- DCFS filed petitions in 2011; boys were adjudicated abused/neglected and made wards of the court; reunification services were provided but the case later progressed toward termination.
- The State sought unfitness findings under Adoption Act § 1(D)(b) (failure to maintain reasonable interest/concern/responsibility) and § 1(D)(m) (failure to make reasonable efforts/progress in a specified nine‑month period). The § 1(D)(k) habitual addict ground was later dismissed.
- Evidence showed early progress (unsupervised visits, negative drug drops) during the nine‑month period cited by the State, but later repeated failures: missed/terminated therapy and parent‑coaching, positive drug tests (including cocaine), inconsistent visitation, refusal to complete psychiatric evaluation, unstable/unsafe housing (returned to mother’s home where prior injuries occurred), and loss of contact with service providers.
- The trial court found Mandi unfit under § 1(D)(b) (reasonableness of efforts), but not under § 1(D)(m) for the specific nine‑month period. The court also found termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests and appointed a guardian with the right to consent to adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent was unfit under 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (failure to maintain reasonable degree of interest/concern/responsibility) | Respondent: she showed reasonable interest/concern — engaged in services, visited children, and made progress during the cited period; therefore not unfit | State: respondent repeatedly failed to complete required services, had ongoing substance use, inconsistent visitation, and unsafe housing — conduct shows unreasonable efforts | Court: affirmed unfitness under § 1(D)(b); respondent’s efforts were not reasonable in light of her circumstances and failures (manifest weight standard) |
| Whether the trial court’s finding under § 1(D)(m) (failure to make reasonable efforts/progress in a specified nine‑month period) controls or precludes a § 1(D)(b) finding | Respondent: trial court’s finding that State failed on § 1(D)(m) shows she made progress and undermines the § 1(D)(b) finding | State: grounds are independent; court may find unfitness under any § 1(D) ground shown by clear and convincing evidence | Court: rejected respondent’s argument — § 1(D) grounds are independent; a § 1(D)(b) finding may stand even if § 1(D)(m) is not proved |
| Standard of review and sufficiency of evidence | Respondent: alleged unfitness finding was not supported by clear and convincing evidence and was against manifest weight of evidence | State: trial court’s credibility and weighing of evidence entitled to deference; record supports finding | Court: applied clear‑and‑convincing/manifest‑weight review, gave deference to trial court, and concluded the § 1(D)(b) finding was not against manifest weight of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d 239 (App. Ct. 2004) (§ 1(D)(b) elements are disjunctive; focus is on reasonableness of efforts, not success)
- In re E.O., 311 Ill. App. 3d 720 (App. Ct. 2000) (trial court evaluates parent’s efforts in light of circumstances; some interest/affection alone may not suffice)
- In re Gwynne P., 215 Ill. 2d 340 (Ill. 2005) (a finding under any one § 1(D) ground is sufficient to establish unfitness)
- In re C.L.T., 302 Ill. App. 3d 770 (App. Ct. 1999) (unfitness may be based on evidence supporting any single statutory ground)
- In re Dominique W., 347 Ill. App. 3d 557 (App. Ct. 2004) (§ 1(D)(m) has a temporal limitation; § 1(D)(b) permits consideration of parent’s conduct in toto)
- In re Deandre D., 405 Ill. App. 3d 945 (App. Ct. 2010) (manifest‑weight standard for reversing fitness findings)
- Connor v. Velinda C., 356 Ill. App. 3d 315 (App. Ct. 2005) (strong deference to trial court in child custody matters)