Child Law

Court entered order terminating Respondent father's parental rights as to his minor daughter, then age 5, and granting petition of minor's mother and another man to adopt her. Court properly found Respondent an unfit parent on basis that he failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to minor's welfare. Respondent' erratic requests for visitation did not show reasonable degree of interest, and it was reasonable for mother to refuse visitation due to Respondent's use of alcohol and drugs.(CHAPMAN and CATES, concurring.)

Court terminated parental rights of Respondent mother as to her daughter, age 9 at time of hearing. Court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother's motion to compel daughter to testify at termination hearing. GAL stated that requiring child's testimony would risk causing her further emotional damage. Child's testimony would not have changed outcome of proceeding, and it would have been detrimental to child's best interest. Mother was afforded adequate procedural due process at termination hearings; he had the opportunity to be heard, was able to explain her position, present evidence, and rebut State's evidence.  (LAVIN and PUCINSKI, concurring.)

Court terminated parental rights of Respondent mother to her 3 minor children, finding her unfit for failure to protect the children and based on her depravity; and terminated parental rights of Respondent father as to 1 minor child based on order finding him to be depraved. Evidence of physical abuse was significant and sufficient for court to find depravity based on a course of conduct indicating a moral deficiency and an inability to conform to accepted morality by both parents. Depravity may be established by means other than criminal convictions. Finding of unfitness based on depravity was not against manifest weight of evidence. Evidence supports finding that it was in children's best interest to have parental rights terminated. All the conditions to allow for an expedited termination proceeding were met. No error in court making an unfitness finding prior to disposition hearing.(GORDON and REYES, concurring.)

Court entered finding of neglect and adjudicated minor, who was born in Indiana, a ward of the court. Respondent mother was a longtime resident of Illinois, and has 2 children under the care of DCFS. Mother's statement to hospital staff that she recently moved to Indiana, this did not conclusively establish her intent to reside in Indiana permanently, and mother's conduct and other statements contradicted her stated intent. Indiana was not the home state of the minor. Evidence supports court's finding that mother and child have a significant connection with Illinois, and thus court had jurisdiction under UCCJEA (Unform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act) to consider the State's custody petition.(DELORT and CONNORS, concurring.)

Court properly dismissed Petitioners' petition for allocation of temporary and permanent parental responsibilities as to the minor, for lack of standing. Petitioners had physical possession of minor for a 2 1/2 year period and maintained responsibility for her daily welfare during that time. One petitioner was the mother of minor's father, who had died by suicide while in county jail. Court properly determined that minor's mother did not voluntarily and indefinitely relinquish physical custody, under meaning of the statute, as understood that if she cooperated with DCFS and successfully participated in her service plan, permanency goal was for her to regain custody of minor within 12 months. (OVERSTREET and CHAPMAN, concurring.)

(Modified upon denial of rehearing 6/28/19.) Court entered order terminating Respondent mother's parental rights as to her 2 minor children. Respondent continually failed to fully comply with requirements of services: substance abuse treatment, random drug screens, psychiatric treatment, medication monitoring, and individual therapy. Although court did not directly ascertain the minors' preferences, no single best-interests factor is dispositive. Although minors had a significant relationship with their mother, court's termination of her parental rights was not against manifest weight of evidence. No indication that mother's trial counsel violated Rule 1.2 by not seeking to withdraw at a late stage in termination proceedings. Respondent failed to show that presenting her testimony in a primarily narrative form fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.(HALL and LAMPKIN, concurring.)