In re S.H., 2014 IL App (3d) 140500

Background

In April 2012 DCFS removed six children after the oldest, S.H., reported sexual abuse by respondent Angel H.’s paramour; neglect petitions followed and five children were adjudicated neglected on September 11, 2012 (M.H.’s wardship had been closed earlier and custody awarded to his father).
The trial court’s dispositional order required Angel to complete services (domestic-violence and individual counseling, parenting classes, psychological evaluation, stable housing/income, substance support, and supervised visitation); she was found dispositionally unfit on October 2, 2012.
The State filed an amended petition (December 2013, with a March 2014 addendum) seeking termination of Angel’s parental rights under Adoption Act grounds including failure to make reasonable efforts/progress, inability to protect children, and lack of interest.
Fitness evidence: Angel missed and curtailed visits, delayed parenting classes, continued a relationship with the accused abuser (Calvin W.), and at times supported him (including testifying at his criminal trial); caseworkers rated several service tasks unsatisfactory.
Best-interests evidence: four children were thriving and bonded in stable foster homes (foster parents seeking adoption); S.H. was in restricted therapeutic care, feared Angel, and had no relationship with her.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Angel)	Held
Jurisdiction as to M.H.	Termination of parental rights may proceed against all named children.	Trial court lacked jurisdiction as M.H.’s wardship had been closed and custody awarded to his father before adjudication/disposition.	Court vacated termination as to M.H.; no jurisdiction because M.H. was not adjudicated/ward at disposition.
Pleading defects (wrong Juvenile Act section; failure to state permanent loss)	Petition adequately alleged statutory grounds; respondent had prior notice at dispositional hearing that rights could be permanently lost.	Amended petition was facially defective for citing wrong section and not saying "permanently."	Issues forfeited by failure to raise at trial; no plain-error reversal because no prejudice shown.
Fitness (failure to make reasonable progress Sept 2012–June 2013)	Angel failed to complete key tasks and continued contact with the abuser, undermining child safety and reunification.	Angel challenged sufficiency of evidence showing unfitness.	Finding of unfitness was not against manifest weight: objective evidence showed lack of reasonable progress and continued association with the abuser.
Best interests of the children	Termination serves children’s need for safety, permanence, and stability; foster families desire adoption; S.H. is fearful of reunification.	Angel argued best-interests finding was against the manifest weight of evidence.	Court affirmed: evidence supported that termination was in children’s best interests.

Key Cases Cited

In re Andrea D., 342 Ill. App. 3d 233 (App. Ct. Ill. 2003) (pleading defects must be raised at trial or are forfeited)
In re S.L., 2014 IL 115424 (Ill. 2014) (petition must sufficiently state statutory grounds)
In re A.E., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1142 (App. Ct. Ill. 2006) (court may only terminate parental rights when child adjudicated and dispositional order entered)
In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329 (Ill. 2010) (consider only the statutory nine-month period when assessing reasonable progress)
In re J.A., 316 Ill. App. 3d 553 (App. Ct. Ill. 2000) (reasonable progress defined as measurable steps toward reunification)
In re J.J., 307 Ill. App. 3d 71 (App. Ct. Ill. 1999) (proof of any one statutory ground of unfitness is sufficient)
In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d 239 (App. Ct. Ill. 2004) (best-interests inquiry shifts focus to the child)
In re Austin W., 214 Ill. 2d 31 (Ill. 2005) (no single factor is determinative in best-interests analysis)
In re R.L., 352 Ill. App. 3d 985 (App. Ct. Ill. 2004) (appellate review of best-interests is for manifest weight of the evidence)