*1 context, under the facts here the court could find defendant know Peck, ingly provoked the victim. See 3d at 814-15. judgment Page County of the circuit court Du is affirmed. Affirmed. J.,
ZENOFF, EJ., HUDSON, concur. (The I.B., People Illinois, In re Minor Petitioner-Appellee, State of v.
M.L., Respondent-Appellant). Third District No. 3—09—0547 Opinion filed December 2009. *2 Pollock, Peoria,
Philip appellant. M. Attorney, (Terry A. Lyons, A. Mertel and Mark W State’s of Peoria Kevin Office, counsel), Attorneys Austill, Appellate Prosecutor’s both State’s People. for the Owens, Peoria, guardian East ad litem.
Nick opinion delivered the the court: JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE father, M.L., unfit to care for respondent found the The trial court I.B., minor, that it in the best interest of the minor the and was ap terminated. The respondent’s parental rights the (1) from him prohibited trial court was peals, arguing that: the (2) old; minor, age years he was denied unfit he was a because him to find due because the State right procedural process (Act) Adoption Act unfit under section of the 50/ 1(D)(e) (West cor 2008)), opportunity allowed the and he was not (3) minor; the and the removal of rect the conditions that led to the against the manifest determination was trial court’s best interest weight of the evidence. affirm. We
FACTS alleging juvenile petition, the State filed On November (2) 2008) (1) (born abused; neglected and May minor was: that the al- injurious petition his welfare. in that his environment was 1, 2008, and October July leged the minor was abused between 1993) (born July 26, and 26, 2008, the on because injuries on the minor mother, the minor’s inflicted Stephanie, (1) at Method- minor was means in that: the by other than accidental 26, 2008, diagnosed with bruis- and was on October ist Medical Center fractures, a fractured multiple rib body, areas of the ing a number of (2) wrist; in the fibula, a fractured radius tibia, and a fractured (3) minor; and the the squeezed and Stephanie shaken minor, squeezed the cheek, and the on the shaken had bitten minor by minor’s ankles. in the air the minor and lifted living petition alleged that the minor was an environment (1) (2) abuse; injurious allegations of the his welfare because: hospital Stephanie attempted and leave with by stopped minor after bruises were found on minor but were (3) security; Stephanie initially hospital told staff police injuries and the caused hit- by minor himself bottle, unlikely face which ting sleeping on (4) age; Stephanie repeatedly based on the minor’s (5) lied police injuries; to the as to the cause of the minor’s Stephanie had been the respondent’s aware of abusive actions but had not taken (6) protect minor; action to Stephanie previously had been for inadequate supervision indicated April her aunt’s children on 17, 2008, by Department of (DCFS); Children and Family Services (7) minor, respondent, Stephanie lived grandmother, minor’s maternal long history who had a with DCFS juvenile and the order, court. Pursuant to a court the minor placed was in temporary shelter care. 25, 2008,
On November petition State filed a for termination of parental rights. petition alleged that the respondent unfit he committed repeated extreme or cruelty that: squeezed by ribs, the minor held upside *3 ankles, down his by cheek, bit the minor the minor; on and shook the the had diagnosed minor been bruising with ato number of body, fractures, areas of the multiple tibia, rib a fractured a fractured fibula, (West 50/1(D)(e) and a fractured radius the wrist. 750 ILCS 2008). 15,
On January 2009, the trial an hearing court held on juvenile the petition allegations and found that the proven had been by a preponderance of the The trial court evidence. concluded that minor was abused and neglected because of the abuse inflicted by respondent and Stephanie. 29, January 2009,
On the trial a dispositional hearing. court held The trial court respondent found the unfit to care for the minor ordered that the minor be made a ward of the court. The trial court also ordered respondent tasks, to complete plan service a such as psychological examination and a domestic trial violence course. The court denied visitation respondent charges because the on jail of aggravated battery aggravated domestic related to the battery injuries. minor’s 11, 2009,
On March hearing petition court held a on to terminate parental rights. The State entered the minor’s medical presented testimony
records into evidence and of the officers who investigated allegations respondent of abuse. The told the officers the minor the chest bruises either because he had thrown that received caught they playing in the air and him while the minor respondent too The hugged because he had the minor hard. stated bit on got that the minor the bruise on his cheek because he stop crying. respondent The the cheek when the minor would him by had lifted the minor the ankles and raised admitted that he doing After a playing his head when he was with the minor. this over times, began heard noise and the minor respondent popping few baby he shook the when cry. The also admitted that respondent squeezed Stephanie cried. told the officers peti- The trial court found that the popping and caused a noise. by convincing evidence. proven had clear and tion been 9, 2009, filed best Amber Nichols Catholic Charities April On that the minor had been hearing report. report The indicated interest The 2008. foster placed parents with his foster since November uncle, 16 years who was parents previously adopted had the minor’s old. provided foster had report parents
The indicated needs, good The report health. as the minor the minor had bonded to the foster also indicated that parents expressed adopt a commitment one another. foster minor. he was no with the since
The minor had visitation pending jail was in on placed in foster care because report indicated that charges arising from the abuse. criminal complete plan service tasks opportunity had had the charges. on the criminal custody he was in speak form so that Nichols could signed a release center. in the detention counselor her best interest filed an addendum to Nichols April given a had been The addendum indicated
report. offer, prison sentence. plea which included hearing. date, interest trial court held best
On the same *4 problems apparent permanent no that the minor had testified Nichols also testified that to She appropriate. that his health they were tasks because plan do his service respondent could not it best inter- that was jail. The court found trial not available parental rights. respondent’s the minor to terminate est of appeals. The respondent
339
ANALYSIS argues court was first that appeal, minor, 15 prohibited finding age him unfit because he was a from claims, that years authority, old. The without citation to minority imposed legal impediment a and that the trial court his prevented finding should have from him unfit until he reached been age majority. particular, of In he that minors cannot enter *5 340 to time her period
that the was not entitled of to correct any did entitle her problems ground where of unfitness to M.M., 71, Ill. 634 App. time to correct the In re 261 3d problems); (finding 12 N.E.2d 36 were entitled to months neglect filing peti between the of and of the termination they tion make toward the return of the children because progress to degree found unfit based on their failure to maintain a reasonable welfare). concern, interest, responsibility of as the children’s Therefore, respondent’s argument find the is without merit. we
Lastly,
argues that the trial court’s best interest
weight
against
determination was
the manifest
of
evidence.
unfit,
to be
all
Once the trial court has found
D.T.,
interest of the child. In re
yield
considerations must
the best
(2004).
347,
at the best inter
Accordingly,
212 Ill. 2d
818
1214
N.E.2d
maintaining
hearing,
parent’s
parent-child
est
interest
stable,
life.
loving
in a
home
relationship yields
the child’s interest
347,
prove by
D.T., 212 Ill. 2d
CONCLUSION reasons, foregoing For of the circuit court of judgment Peoria is affirmed. County
Affirmed. J.,
SCHMIDT, concurs. McDADE, concurring: JUSTICE specially I judgment majority separately concur in the of the but write clarify that there are some a parent circumstances where is entitled to *6 specific period of time to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the minor. (Act) (750
While section
the Adoption
Act
ILCS 50/
1(D)(e) (West 2008)) does
entitle
parent
specific period
to a
1(D)(m)
unfit,
time before a trial court
find
may
parent
section
50/1(D)(m) (West 2008))
1(D)(m)(ii)
of the Act does. Section
provides
that a
can be deemed unfit where he or she has failed
to “make
progress
reasonable
toward
return
of the child to the
parent within
9 months after an
of neglected or abused
***
dependent
minor” has been made. 750 ILCS 50/
1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2008). If the
State had
unfitness
(1)(D)(m)(ii)
basis,
on this
section
guaranteed respondent
would have
9 months
I.B.
adjudicated
after
and neglected
abused
to make
progress
reasonable
toward the return
I.B.
See 750 ILCS 50/
1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2008). Thus, the
question
whether
is
period
entitled to a specific
of time to
correct
conditions that led to
the removal of the minor
dependent
is
what
upon
prong
State
seeks to
parent’s
establish the
unfitness.
notes
voluntarily
an acknowl-
they may
sign
into certain contracts and that
but
not
edgment
paternity
paternity
of
that
would
be established
conclusively
majority.
after
See
until six months
the minor reaches
45/5(b) (West 2008).
750 ILCS
agree
While we
that a minor cannot enter into certain contracts
and that a
voluntary acknowledgment
paternity
of
not
does
conclusively
until
it
paternity
majority,
establish
the minor reaches
is
minor,
unclear how this is relevant
this
The
respondent,
to
case.
was
through
found
be the father
the child
paternity
court-ordered
testing, and
acknowledgment
paternity
an
unnecessary.
was
The
appears
argue
subject
that he was
(750
(West 2008))
Act
et seq.
ILCS
minority.
because of
his
50/0.01
Act is not
recognizes
“putative
so limited.
Act
that
may
father”
50/1(R) (West
he a
years
“male who is
than
age.”
less
750 ILCS
2008).
provides
It also
that a consent
adoption
or a
of a
surrender
50/11(a)
is
child
parent
voidable because the
is a minor. 750 ILCS
(West 2008). The Act applied
respondent,
to the
and the trial court
prohibited
was not
finding
from
unfit because of his
(1994) (af
minority.
M.M.,
See In re
App.
261 Ill.
3d