In re P.S., 2021 IL App (5th) 210027

Background

A.S. was born Feb. 1, 2019, with methamphetamines, amphetamines, and marijuana in his system; DCFS opened an investigation and the children were removed in July 2019. The court adjudicated the minors neglected on Oct. 1, 2019.
Father’s service plan (revised June 2020) required substance‑abuse, mental‑health, and domestic‑violence assessments and follow‑up; Father repeatedly missed appointments, tested positive for methamphetamine multiple times, and did not complete recommended outpatient treatment during the relevant nine‑month period.
The State filed petitions to terminate Father’s parental rights on Aug. 4, 2020, alleging unfitness under (m)(i) (failure to make reasonable efforts) and (m)(ii) (failure to make reasonable progress).
The fitness and best‑interests hearings were held via Zoom on Nov. 24, 2020; Father moved orally for a continuance and for an in‑person hearing, both were denied.
The trial court found Father unfit (failure to make reasonable efforts and reasonable progress during the nine‑month period) and, by a preponderance, that termination was in the children’s best interests; written order entered same day. Father appealed, challenging the manifest weight of the rulings and arguing denial of an in‑person hearing violated due process.
The Fifth District affirmed. The majority held the unfitness and best‑interests findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and that proceeding under Ill. S. Ct. R. 241 by videoconference did not violate due process; Justice Wharton dissented, arguing an in‑person hearing was required under the Mathews factors and Rule 241 was misapplied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Father was unfit for failing to make reasonable efforts (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i))	State: Father was repeatedly referred to services but largely failed to attend or complete them during the relevant nine‑month period.	Father: COVID‑19 and practical barriers made completion impossible within nine months; he later sought treatment.	Affirmed — evidence showed Father made little earnest effort; finding not against manifest weight.
Whether Father failed to make reasonable progress toward return (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii))	State: Objective, measurable progress was lacking (positive tests, missed appointments, no completed outpatient programs in period).	Father: He later completed inpatient treatment, obtained employment, and maintained visits and bonds with children.	Affirmed — no measurable movement toward reunification in the nine‑month period.
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests	State/DCFS: Children were thriving and bonded with foster parents who seek to adopt; parent instability and substance abuse posed ongoing risks.	Father: Recent inpatient completion, employment, consistent visits, and parent–child bond supported reunification potential.	Affirmed — preponderance of evidence favored termination given stability and needs met in foster home.
Whether denial of continuance / holding the hearing remotely violated due process or misapplied Ill. S. Ct. R. 241	State: Rule 241 permits remote participation for good cause (limited court operations during COVID‑19) and the court employed safeguards; no prejudice shown.	Father: Has a statutory/right‑to‑be‑present claim and was prejudiced by inability to demand in‑person hearing or have the court fully observe demeanor; Rule 241 is permissive and remote proceedings over objection were improper.	Held: Claim forfeited for inadequate briefing and for failure to raise an articulated due‑process objection below; alternatively, no abuse of discretion — Rule 241 authorization, limited court operations constituted good cause, safeguards were used, and no prejudice shown.

Key Cases Cited

In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329 (Ill. 2010) (describing the two‑step statutory framework for involuntary termination proceedings)
In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347 (Ill. 2004) (standard for best‑interests stage and burden shifting after unfitness finding)
People v. Lindsey, 201 Ill. 2d 45 (Ill. 2002) (remote appearance may satisfy right to be "in open court" where absence does not render proceedings unfair)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three‑factor balancing test for procedural due process)
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1996) (parent–child relationship is a fundamental liberty interest)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (recognizing the severe, irreversible nature of terminating parental rights)
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (due process framework for parental‑rights deprivation)
People v. Stroud, 208 Ill. 2d 398 (Ill. 2004) (distinguishing types of criminal proceedings where remote appearance may be inadequate)
People v. Bean, 137 Ill. 2d 65 (Ill. 1990) (absence does not constitute constitutional violation absent denial of an underlying substantial right)
In re J.J., 201 Ill. 2d 236 (Ill. 2002) (parental‑termination proceedings must comport with due process)