2018 IL App (3d) 170539
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- P.J., born July 7, 2014, was adjudicated a neglected minor; the State later sought termination of parental rights.
- The State alleged respondent Jacob R. was unfit under section 1(D)(i) (depraved) and also filed other counts (one later dismissed).
- The State introduced Jacob’s criminal history showing at least five felony convictions, including a 2014 federal conviction.
- Jacob introduced his inmate education transcript and testified about classes completed, GED, prior in‑custody drug treatment, and an anticipated release date and future plans.
- At the fitness hearing the trial court stated Jacob bore the burden to rebut the presumption of depravity by clear and convincing evidence and found him depraved; the court later terminated parental rights.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard for rebutting the statutory presumption of depravity and whether Jacob’s evidence rebutted that presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jacob forfeited the claim by failing to object and file a posttrial motion | Forfeiture applies; plain error review is inappropriate or not shown | Court may review waived issue under plain error or in interest of justice | Court exercised discretion to consider the waived claim to achieve justice and uniform precedent |
| Proper standard for rebutting the statutory presumption of depravity and whether Jacob rebutted it | Presumption remained and State satisfied burden to prove depravity | Trial court applied wrong standard (requiring defendant to rebut by clear and convincing evidence); Jacob’s inmate education records and testimony rebutted the presumption | Trial court erred by requiring Jacob to rebut by clear and convincing evidence; the presumption was rebutted by his evidence and the case is remanded for a new unfitness hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 358 Ill. App. 3d 247 (2005) (rebuttable presumption ceases once respondent’s evidence is in the case)
- In re J.A., 316 Ill. App. 3d 553 (2000) (analysis of rebuttable presumption and shifting the determination to evidence once presumption is opposed)
- In re J.J., 201 Ill. 2d 236 (2002) (parental‑rights termination requires fundamentally fair procedures)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (due process and standard of proof in parental‑rights terminations)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (2005) (plain error doctrine standards)
- NC Illinois Trust Co. v. Madigan, 351 Ill. App. 3d 311 (2004) (de novo review for whether correct legal standard applied)