In re Tyianna J.
2017 IL App (1st) 162306
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Traci F. is the mother of five children; three older children (Tyianna, David Jr., Daniel) had prior findings of abuse/neglect and were in DCFS custody after years of inconsistent participation by Traci in services.
- Davion (born April 2015) was taken into custody days after birth; the State filed for adjudication and sought leave to pursue termination of Traci’s parental rights at the dispositional hearing.
- The State alleged anticipatory neglect for Davion based on Traci’s long history of mental-health issues, poor service compliance, repeated unsuccessful discharges from therapy/parent coaching, and supervised/erratic visitation.
- The trial court held combined evidentiary hearings (March and June 2016) covering adjudication (Davion) and fitness (older children); the court found Traci unfit as to the older children and, after further proceedings, adjudicated Davion neglected/abused on an anticipatory neglect theory.
- The court terminated Traci’s parental rights to all four children (including Davion) at disposition, appointed a guardian with authority to consent to adoption, and changed permanency goals to adoption; Traci appealed only as to Davion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Traci) | Defendant's Argument (State/Public Guardian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davion’s adjudication as neglected/abused (anticipatory neglect) was against manifest weight | There was no proof the conditions that produced removal of siblings persisted in April 2015; each child must be judged on own facts | Sibling-history and Traci’s continued noncompliance made future harm probable; anticipatory neglect doctrine applies | Affirmed: preponderance supported anticipatory neglect and abuse findings |
| Whether expedited termination at disposition was improper and required additional statutory predicates from §1‑2(1) | Expedited termination was inappropriate absent the specific "egregious" circumstances listed in §1‑2(1), and court should have held a separate hearing to find those conditions | The statutory prerequisites are those in §2‑21(5); policy list in §1‑2(1) is non‑exhaustive guidance, not the dispositive test | Affirmed: §2‑21(5) controls; court complied with §2‑21(5) and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether Traci was denied due process because court found unfitness before adjudication/heard expedited-motion issues | Premature unfitness finding and lack of separate hearing on expedited criteria deprived her of notice and meaningful process | Traci had notice (supplemental petition) and multiple hearings (including Nov 30, 2015 objection and March/June/July 2016 evidentiary hearings); any procedural misstatement was corrected on record | Affirmed: Traci received meaningful opportunity to be heard; sequence finalized properly on record |
| Whether the unfitness and best‑interest findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence | Traci maintained interest/concern and showed bonds with Davion; termination was disproportionate given the child’s young age and the parent–child bond | Evidence showed repeated failures to complete services, discharged from therapy/parent coaching, erratic visits, and foster placement providing stability and bonding; termination served permanence | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported unfitness (failure to maintain reasonable degree of responsibility) and preponderance supported best‑interest termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d 441 (Illinois 2004) (explains anticipatory neglect and limits of sibling‑evidence as proof)
- In re Edricka C., 276 Ill. App. 3d 18 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995) (anticipatory neglect presumption weakens over time; context matters)
- In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198 (Ill. 2002) (one proven ground of unfitness suffices for termination)
- In re A.P., 179 Ill. 2d 184 (Ill. 1997) (standard: adjudication requires preponderance; deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re M.F., 326 Ill. App. 3d 1110 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (distinguishes termination outcomes for older children with strong parental ties versus infants where permanence via adoption favors termination)