In re Z.J.
168 N.E.3d 210
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Z.J., born 2004, diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, and ADHD; removed from respondent Lisa A.J.’s home after alleged physical abuse by respondent’s paramour (later husband) Daniel A.
- DCFS filed neglect/abuse petition (2014); respondent stipulated to one neglect count; child placed in relative/foster/residential care and ultimately at Cunningham Children’s Home due to severe behavioral issues.
- Over multiple permanency reviews (2015–2019) DCFS repeatedly recommended services (parenting classes, individual and family therapy, autism-specific training via Easter Seals, psychological evaluation); respondent completed some tasks but failed to engage consistently in autism-specific education and later ceased participation.
- Psychological evaluation in 2018 diagnosed respondent with dependent personality disorder and borderline intellectual functioning (WAIS-IV FSIQ 76) and concluded a poor prognosis for reunification absent further intervention.
- In June–Dec 2018 the court changed the permanency goal to substitute care pending termination; State moved to terminate respondent’s parental rights in December 2018; unfitness (July 2019) and best-interests (Sept 2019) hearings followed (respondent did not attend; counsel represented her).
- Trial court found respondent unfit on three statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence and, by a preponderance, that termination served Z.J.’s best interests; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lisa) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether unfitness finding was supported where State relied on DCFS service plans and caseworker testimony | Service plans are business records admissible under 705 ILCS 405/2-18(4)(a); caseworker Mayzes could testify about plans and her own observations | Service plans contained multilevel hearsay; State failed to lay foundation for plans and for Mayzes’s out-of-court assertions | Admitted plans and testimony were proper; lack of maker’s personal knowledge affects weight, not admissibility; unfitness finding affirmed |
| 2) Whether termination was in child’s best interests | Evidence showed child bonding with experienced prospective foster parent, placement stability prospects, respondent’s inconsistent contact and continued relationship with abuser | Hearsay from prior phase and service plans tainted best-interests proof; remaining admissible evidence insufficient | Best-interests finding supported by record (bond with foster mother, child’s safety/fear of Daniel); affirmed |
| 3) Ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to evidence/admissions | — (State defended admissibility) | Counsel should have objected to hearsay/foundation and court reliance on permanency rulings | No deficient performance or prejudice shown; objections would likely fail or be futile; claim denied |
| 4) Due process / judicial bias from same judge handling pre-termination proceedings and termination hearings | — (State maintained judge acted properly and neutrally) | Judge had presided over years of reviews and changed permanency goal, creating risk of inability to set aside prior impressions; recusal should be required when judge changes goal to termination | No per se rule; judge presumed to consider only admissible evidence absent record showing otherwise; no due-process violation proven |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329 (2010) (clarifies burden and procedure for termination proceedings)
- In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill. 2d 255 (1990) (sets standard that, after unfitness, best-interests phase requires preponderance of evidence)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (2007) (plain-error doctrine explanation)
- In re A.B., 308 Ill. App. 3d 227 (1999) (business-service plans admissible; client service plans can establish unfitness)
- In re Kenneth J., 352 Ill. App. 3d 967 (2004) (admission of agency records under business-records exception)
- In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181 (2001) (reasonableness of progress inquiry in termination context)
- People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584 (2008) (presumption that judge considers only admissible evidence)
- People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539 (2010) (limits of plain-error review)