Child Law

Respondent appealed from a trial court order terminating his parental rights, arguing that the court’s determinations that he was unfit and that the termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of his minor son were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State countered that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the respondent cited to the wrong supreme court rule in his notice of appeal. The appellate court concluded that even if the State was correct that respondent cited the incorrect supreme court rule it still had jurisdiction under Rule 301. The appellate court then went on to consider the appeal on its merits and affirmed, finding that the trial court's orders were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed that respondent tested positive for methamphetamine several times and where there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s best-interest findings. (ZENOFF and CAVANAGH, concurring)

Respondent appealed from the circuit court’s termination of his parental rights over his minor children, arguing that the court’s finding that he was unfit was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the record supported the conclusion that respondent did not maintain a reasonable degree of responsibility for the welfare of his minor children where the evidence established that defendant did not properly address the allergies and asthma of his children, including feeding his child food to which the child was allergic. (HYMAN and GAMRATH, concurring)