In re A.P.-M

Court terminated parental rights of Respondent mother as to 3 of her children, and nearly 2 years later terminated her parental rights as to her 1 other child. As the first order was not a final order, court had jurisdiction when it issued second order terminating parental rights. DCFS did not violate Respondents due process rights, and it was not fundamentally unfair, when DCFS terminated Respondents reunification services, when child was not scheduled to be reunified with Respondent. No ineffective assistance of counsel in failure to object to termination of reunification services, as it is highly unlikely that court would have changed permanency goal to Respondent.(KNECHT and TURNER, concurring.)