In re Shauntae P.
967 N.E.2d 968
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Keisha H. sought to terminate parental rights as to Shauntae P. and Kyla P. following DCFS guardianship and a 2010–2011 termination petition; court found unfitness under 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b), (m), and (i) and that termination was in the minors’ best interests.
- DCFS became involved in 2007 after hotline reports alleging drug use, domestic violence, and risky environments; Keisha was incarcerated at times and failed to complete recommended services.
- The minors were placed in DCFS custody in 2008, initially with relatives, then with Kyle and Karen H. since July 2009; visits were supervised, volatile, and Keisha admitted relapsing in 2009.
- Keisha moved to Colorado and then back to Illinois during litigation, missed numerous services, and had multiple criminal incarcerations; she maintained some visits but largely inconsistent.
- At trial, the circuit court found Keisha unfit under multiple grounds and terminated parental rights, appointing Kyle and Karen as guardians with the right to consent to adoption; best-interests finding followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Keisha unfit under 1(D)(b) for lack of reasonable interest or responsibility? | State | Keisha argues DCFS failed to provide credits and access to services | Unfitness under 1(D)(b) affirmed. |
| Is Keisha unfit under 1(D)(m) for failing to make reasonable efforts toward reunification? | State | Keisha completed some services but overall did not pursue reunification | Unfitness under 1(D)(m) affirmed. |
| Is termination in the minors’ best interests? | State | Debra or Keisha contends best interest favors retention | Best interests support termination and adoption. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198 (2002) (two-step termination process; clear and convincing standard for unfitness)
- In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181 (2001) (manifest weight standard for unfitness findings)
- In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d 239 (2004) (reasonableness of interest; noncompliance supports unfitness under 1(D)(b))
- In re C.E., 406 Ill. App. 3d 97 (2010) (1(D)(b) requires reasonable, not merely affectionate, interest)