In re M.R. ( 2021 )

NOTICE 2021 IL App (5th) 200287-UNOTICE
Decision filed 03/29/21. The
This order was filed under
text of this decision may be NO. 5-20-0287 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
changed or corrected prior to
not precedent except in the
the filing of a Petition for
Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE limited circumstances allowed
under Rule 23(e)(1).
the same.
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
________________________________________________________________________
In re M.R. and N.R., Minors ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) Bond County.
)
Petitioner-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 18-JA-7
)
Courtney C., ) Honorable
) Ronald R. Slemer,
Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding.
________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE WELCH delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Cates and Moore concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The trial court’s finding that the respondent mother was unfit is affirmed
where the State proved that she was unfit by clear and convincing evidence.
The court’s best-interest determination was also not against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
¶2 The respondent mother, Courtney C., appeals the judgment of the circuit court of
Bond County terminating her parental rights to her minor children, M.R. and N.R. On
appeal, Courtney C. argues that the court’s findings that she was an unfit parent under
sections 1(D)(m)(i) and (ii) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i), (ii) (West 2018))
were erroneous because the State failed to prove her unfit by clear and convincing
1
evidence. Courtney C. also argues that the court’s finding that termination of her parental
rights was in the best interests of M.R. and N.R. is against the manifest weight of the
evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 1
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 M.R. was born on March 7, 2012, to Courtney C. and Michael R. Thereafter, N.R.
was born to Courtney C. and Michael R. on November 5, 2014. Courtney C. and Michael
R. were divorced in September 2016. In March 2017, Courtney C. married Joseph C. while
he was incarcerated on a child pornography charge. In January 2019, Courtney C. gave
birth to B.C., who was Joseph C.’s daughter. This appeal involves the termination of
Courtney C.’s parental rights to M.R. and N.R. However, facts relating to Michael R.,
Joseph C., and B.C. will be discussed as necessary to provide relevant background for the
issues presented by this appeal.
¶5 On April 26, 2018, the State filed a juvenile petition, asserting that M.R. and N.R.
were neglected and abused. The petition first alleged that the minors were neglected
because their environment was injurious to their welfare, in that there were ongoing
concerns about Courtney C.’s ability or unwillingness to protect them. The petition also
alleged that the minors were neglected because they were not receiving the care necessary
for their well-being, including adequate food, clothing, and shelter, in that Michael R. had
1
This is an accelerated appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a) (eff. July 1, 2018). With
respect to such cases, Rule 311(a)(5) provides in relevant part that “[e]xcept for good cause shown,
the appellate court shall issue its decision within 150 days after the filing of the notice of appeal.” Ill. S.
Ct. R. 311(a)(5) (eff. July 1, 2018). In this case, the 150-day period to issue a decision expired on February
16, 2021. However, both parties were granted extensions of time to file their briefs. As a result, briefing
in this appeal was not completed until March 18, 2021, and the case was submitted March 24, 2021. Under
these circumstances, we find good cause to issue our decision after the 150-day deadline.
2
unstable housing and was not capable of having the minors reside with him. The petition
further alleged that the minors were abused because Courtney C. created a substantial risk
of physical harm and/or emotional impairment to them because she was unable or unwilling
to make viable parenting decisions. Additionally, the petition alleged that the minors were
abused because Courtney C. created a substantial risk of physical injury to them by other
than accidental means that would likely cause death, disfigurement, impairment of
emotional health, or loss or impairment of any bodily function. It was alleged that
Courtney C. was married to and resided with a sexual predator whose parental rights to his
biological children had been involuntarily terminated and who was unable to obtain
parental fitness, and that she allowed her husband, Joseph C., unfettered access to the
minors even after M.R. disclosed that he inappropriately touched N.R.
¶6 Also on April 26, 2018, the trial court entered a temporary custody order, finding
that there was an immediate and urgent necessity to remove M.R. and N.R. from their
parents’ care and that leaving M.R. and N.R. in their home was against their health, welfare,
and safety. The court found that there was probable cause for the filing of the petition
because Courtney C. failed to protect the children based on M.R.’s disclosure that Joseph
C. had inappropriately touched N.R., and she allowed a sexual predator to have access to
the children. These findings were based on a stipulation from Michael R., evidence that
Courtney C. continued to allow Joseph C. to have access to the minors, and unsuccessful
attempts by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to provide
open intact services that failed to maintain the safety of the children. Thus, temporary
custody of M.R. and N.R. was placed with DCFS.
3
¶7 On May 21, 2018, DCFS prepared an initial report and family service plan, which
explained the reasons why the case was opened. DCFS received a hotline call in March
2018 stating that Joseph C. was a registered sex offender who lived with Courtney C. and
her children. Courtney C. did not think it was an issue for the children to be around Joseph
C. Another hotline call was received in April 2018, in which the caller said Joseph C. was
on school district property with Courtney C. while dropping the children off for school.
The report further indicated that there was a risk of sexual abuse to the children and of
parental criminal behavior. Giving rise to the sexual abuse risk finding, the report indicated
that M.R. and N.R. had both disclosed that Joseph C. stuck his fingers in N.R.’s buttocks.
Courtney C. denied the allegation.
¶8 The services recommended for Courtney C. were to complete a parenting program,
comply with any recommended services, and demonstrate appropriate parenting skills. For
Michael R., the services recommended were to complete a substance abuse assessment and
comply with any recommended services. Further, the services identified for Joseph C.
were to complete a sexual perpetration evaluation and comply with any recommended
services.
¶9 On May 25, 2018, a default adjudicatory order was entered against Michael R. after
he was served with a summons and failed to appear. In the order, the trial court found that
the minors were neglected, and that they were in an environment that was injurious to their
welfare as defined by section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court
Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2018)).
4
¶ 10 On June 20, 2018, Caritas Family Solutions (Caritas) filed an adjudication hearing
report, which indicated that an integrated assessment had been completed on June 4, 2018.
Courtney C. had been recommended to attend a parenting program, offense risk education
and safety planning, and individual therapy. Michael R. had been recommended to attend
a substance abuse evaluation and individual counseling. Joseph C. had been recommended
to attend a sexual perpetration evaluation. The children had also been referred to therapy.
¶ 11 The DCFS integrated assessment reported that Courtney C. was cordial throughout
her interview. Courtney C. disclosed that after her parents divorced when she was four
years old, her stepfather was verbally abusive to her mother, which resulted in Courtney C.
residing with her father. Two of her maternal siblings were physically abused by her
mother’s ex-husband. Courtney C. described her time in the Army as well as her
relationship with Michael R. Courtney C. married Joseph C. in March 2017, while he was
incarcerated for child pornography. She described their relationship as “good,” she loved
Joseph C., and she did not believe that he would harm her children. Courtney C. also
indicated that she believed Joseph C. was innocent of the child pornography charge.
¶ 12 The integrated assessment also listed the following concerns as to Courtney C.’s
ability to meet the children’s needs: supervision, medical management, discipline, and
understanding impact of behavior. Courtney C. chose to marry Joseph C. after he was
convicted of child pornography and then moved him into her home after he was released
from jail. Joseph C. was only in the home for four days before the alleged digital
penetration of N.R. occurred. Courtney C. continued to deny the allegations even though
she was aware of the incident and the children had been consistent in their accounts.
5
Courtney C. denied that Joseph C. presented a danger to the children and viewed the
concern about him as unwarranted.
¶ 13 The integrated assessment revealed that Courtney C. reported she had little support,
which left her feeling lonely. Courtney C. “presented with emotional blunting, which may
be rooted in depression.” The interviewer found her to be “somewhat numb” to the traumas
she had experienced as well as to the DCFS case. Courtney C. was in denial about Joseph
C., and her ability to adequately parent was significantly impaired by her refusal to
acknowledge his history as a sexual perpetrator along with her prioritization of their
relationship over the children’s safety and well-being. Based on the foregoing, the
assessment recommended offense risk education and safety planning, individual
psychotherapy, involvement in children’s services, obtaining Courtney C.’s past mental
health treatment records, and coaching visitation.
¶ 14 On July 10, 2018, a DCFS family service plan was prepared, which identified the
following services for Courtney C.: (1) complete an offense risk and safety planning class
and comply with all recommendations, (2) actively participate in individual therapy, and
(3) complete a parenting program and comply with all recommendations.
¶ 15 On July 11, 2018, Caritas filed another adjudication hearing report, which indicated
that the caseworker had given Courtney C. information about parenting classes and
individual therapy providers. Courtney C. also self-reported that she was nine weeks
pregnant at that time, presumably with Joseph C.’s child. Joseph C. had not engaged in
any recommended services, but services were unavailable to him because he was
incarcerated at the Bond County jail. Michael R. had also not engaged in any
6
recommended services. Caritas recommended that the children remain in DCFS custody,
that Courtney C. and Michael R. have supervised visitation with the children, and that
Joseph C. have no contact with the children.
¶ 16 On July 17, 2018, the trial court held an adjudicatory hearing as to Courtney C. and
a dispositional hearing as to Michael R. After the hearing, the court found the minors were
neglected in that they were in an environment that was injurious to their welfare as defined
by section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act (id.), and they were in substantial risk of
physical abuse as defined by section 2-3(2)(ii) of the Juvenile Court Act (id. § 2-3(2)(ii)).
The finding was based on the children’s disclosure of sexual abuse as well as Courtney
C.’s actions in marrying a sexual predator and allowing him access to the children.
¶ 17 On August 7, 2018, Caritas filed another adjudication hearing report, which
indicated that Courtney C. was engaged in individual therapy at that time. The caseworker
had provided Courtney C. with service provider information for the parenting program, but
the worker had not provided service provider information for the offense education and
safety planning classes because she was unable to locate one near Greenville. Neither
Joseph C. nor Michael R. had engaged in services at that time. Courtney C. had supervised
visits with the children for two hours per week in her home or in the community.
¶ 18 On August 13, 2018, the trial court held a dispositional hearing. According to the
court’s docket entry, it heard testimony from the caseworker as well as Courtney C.,
followed by arguments from the parties. After the hearing, the court entered a written
dispositional order, finding that Courtney C. and Michael R. were unfit, unable, and
unwilling to care for, protect, train, educate, supervise, or discipline M.R. and N.R., and
7
that placement with Courtney C. and Michael R. was contrary to the children’s health,
safety, and best interests. The court reached this conclusion because Michael R. had not
yet started his service plan tasks and did not have appropriate housing, and because
Courtney C. continued to maintain that Joseph C. did not molest her child, which posed a
risk to the children. The court noted that reasonable efforts and appropriate services aimed
at family reunification had been made, but they did not eliminate the necessity of removal
of the minors from the home. The court again determined that M.R. and N.R. were abused
and neglected, and it placed custody and guardianship with DCFS. The goal of the service
plan was to return the children to their home within 12 months, and the parents were
granted supervised visitation with the minors.
¶ 19 On October 29, 2018, Caritas filed a permanency hearing report, which stated that
the children had been placed with a relative, they were doing well in their home, and their
caregiver was committed to continuing to care for them as long as necessary. As to service
plan progress, the report indicated that the caseworker was collaborating with Courtney
C.’s therapist to get Courtney C. to complete a perpetrator education class. Courtney C.
was attending parenting classes once per week. Neither Joseph C. nor Michael R. were
engaged in services at that time. Courtney C. and Michael R. had supervised visits with
the children.
¶ 20 At the November 2, 2018, permanency hearing, there was a stipulation concerning
the lack of progress being made by Courtney C. and Michael R. That same day, the trial
court entered a written permanency order, finding that neither parent had made reasonable
progress or reasonable efforts toward the minors returning home in that Courtney C. needed
8
to continue engaging in services and Michael R. was not engaged in any services. The
permanency goal was to return the children home within 12 months.
¶ 21 On January 23, 2019, Caritas filed another permanency hearing report, which
indicated that the children were doing “very well” in their home. The caseworker had
completed the referral for Courtney C.’s specialty class for offense risk education and
safety planning. Courtney C.’s therapist indicated that Courtney C. was making adequate
progress in her individual therapy. Courtney C.’s parenting classes were going well, and
it was reported that she showed positive progress in the class. Joseph C. was not engaged
in any services at that time. Michael R. had met with the caseworker to complete his
substance abuse assessment, and he attended a drug screen. The report also indicated that
Courtney C. and Michael R. were visiting the children during their scheduled times and
were appropriate during their visits.
¶ 22 On February 6, 2019, the trial court held a permanency hearing, at which there was
another stipulation concerning the permanency review. The court noted that Courtney C.
had not made reasonable efforts or reasonable progress, although the agency had provided
reasonable services and efforts. That same day, the court entered a written permanency
order, finding that neither parent had made reasonable progress or efforts toward M.R. and
N.R.’s return home as Courtney C. needed to participate in services contained in the service
plan, and Michael R. needed to obtain a substance abuse evaluation and stable housing.
The permanency goal remained to return the children home within 12 months.
¶ 23 On May 24, 2019, Caritas filed a permanency hearing report, in which it changed
the recommended permanency goal to substitute care pending termination. The report
9
indicated that Courtney C. had completed her parenting education program. Due to a lack
of available services related to the recommended offense risk education and safety planning
class, Courtney C. had been working with her therapist on these issues, as the therapist had
an extensive background in sexual abuse therapy and victimization training. The therapist
reported that Courtney C. still lacked the understanding that Joseph C. could be harmful to
her children. To the caseworker’s knowledge, Courtney C. was “still denying any acts
against her children.” Courtney C. was attending weekly therapy and continued to maintain
a home and job for the children. The report also indicated that Joseph C. had not completed
a sexual perpetration evaluation. Michael R. was not engaged in services and had not
completed his substance abuse evaluation.
¶ 24 It was further reported in the status report that Courtney C. had supervised visits
with the children. The children’s caregiver had offered Courtney C. additional visitations,
but she had not taken advantage of this. Courtney C. and Joseph C. reported that they were
divorced; however, they also indicated that they intended to be together regardless of the
legality of their relationship. Courtney C. did not recognize the risk of harm to her children
from Joseph C., who had several outbursts in which he made threats against Courtney C.,
the caseworker, and the foster parent for his youngest daughter. Joseph C. made statements
while at two DCFS offices that warranted the security team contacting the caseworker
about the safety of those involved. Joseph C. claimed that the allegations against him were
false. Finally, it was reported that Michael R. was sporadic with his visitations with the
children.
10
¶ 25 On July 31, 2019, the trial court held a permanency hearing, at which the following
testimony was presented. Tiffany Kimmel, a lead foster care case manager for Caritas, had
been assigned to M.R. and N.R.’s case in November 2018 after another caseworker stepped
down from the case. Kimmel testified that she was requesting a permanency goal change
to “Substitute care and pending termination” because Courtney C. was not showing
progress as far as parenting her children consistently and correcting the conditions that
brought the children into care. Kimmel explained that Courtney C.’s then-current status
was that she was visiting with the children and attending services, but she had not shown
any progress in her visitations with the children. Courtney C. was attending counseling,
but she was not capable of applying what she learned in counseling to her day-to-day
interactions with the children.
¶ 26 When asked for her understanding as to why M.R. and N.R. came into DCFS care,
Kimmel explained that they were in the same home environment and were accessible to a
sexual perpetrator, i.e., Joseph C., who was Courtney C.’s husband. Joseph C. was a part
of the DCFS family service plan, and he had been instructed to complete a sexual offender
class. At the time of the hearing, he had not completed the sexual offender class, which
was his only recommended service. Kimmel further testified that throughout the life of the
case, the services recommended for Courtney C. and Joseph C. had remained the same,
and neither of them had made progress. Kimmel again asserted that Courtney C. had not
corrected the conditions that led to the children’s removal from her home.
¶ 27 On cross-examination, Kimmel listed the services Courtney C. had been assigned
to complete, which included parenting classes, individual counseling, and sexual
11
perpetration education class. Caritas could not locate a provider of the sexual perpetration
education class in Courtney C.’s area, so Courtney C. was working with her therapist on
those issues. Courtney C. had completed her parenting classes. She had also been
consistently attending her individual counseling, but she was not making progress or
understanding the effect that her relationship with Joseph C. would have on her children.
Kimmel recalled that Courtney C.’s therapy progress reports and conversations with the
therapist had been consistent in that Courtney C. was not making substantial progress
during her visitations.
¶ 28 Kimmel testified that Courtney C. said she had filed for divorce, but that would not
rectify the situation because she was still in a relationship with Joseph C., they were still
living together, and they were together a substantial amount of the time. Kimmel
considered that to be inappropriate because Joseph C. was a registered sex offender who
had been accused of inappropriately touching Courtney C.’s children, but she continued to
allow him to be around them. Kimmel stated that Courtney C. visited the children
regularly, and the visits were mostly appropriate. There were no complaints about
Courtney C. interacting with her children, she seemed to get along with them, and they
seemed to love and interact with her. Kimmel believed that Courtney C. understood the
restrictions that Joseph C. was not to have contact with the children, but she did not believe
that Courtney C. was committed to that. Kimmel had repeatedly explained to Courtney C.
that her relationship with Joseph C. was the biggest concern in this case, but Courtney C.
did not understand the effect of Joseph C.’s presence on her children. Although Courtney
C. had fulfilled aspects of her service plan, Kimmel remained concerned that Courtney C.
12
was not making progress in her understanding of what the problem was with Joseph C. or
getting rid of him. Kimmel believed that the best thing for the safety of the children would
be for Courtney C. to remove Joseph C. from her life, and Kimmel could not see Courtney
C. being successful in any other way. Kimmel had discussed these issues openly and
honestly with Courtney C. and encouraged her to work on her services. Kimmel explained
that her view on Courtney C.’s progress was based on her observations during visitations,
her interactions with Courtney C., and reports from her therapists as well as other people
who were supervising Courtney C.’s visits with her children. Kimmel did not believe
Courtney C. had made progress in being able to protect her children.
¶ 29 Courtney C. testified that she married Joseph C. in March 2017 while he was in
prison. At the time of the hearing, she had filed for divorce, but it was dismissed because
she could not pay the filing fee. She was still living with Joseph C. in Taylorville, but he
had plans to move out. Courtney C. understood that Joseph C. was to have no contact with
M.R. and N.R. Courtney C. said she understood that Joseph C. was a sex offender, there
were allegations of sexual penetration with N.R., and why the children were removed from
her home. Courtney C. did not believe the allegations against Joseph C. Rather, she
claimed that her daughter said her paternal grandmother, who was also the children’s foster
parent, told her to fabricate the allegation. Courtney C. asserted she “was there the whole
time with [her] kids” and had “heard three different stories about that night and none of
them make sense.” Courtney C. testified that she would never allow Joseph C. around her
children because she understood that he was not allowed around them. Even if the court
order were lifted, Courtney C. claimed she would seek DCFS approval prior to allowing
13
Joseph C. around the children. Courtney C. testified that under different circumstances,
she would feel safe with her children being around him.
¶ 30 On cross-examination, Courtney C. admitted that Joseph C. went to prison after
pleading guilty to child pornography. She also admitted that she chose to marry a sexual
predator while he was in prison for child pornography, and he came to live at her house
after he was released from prison. Joseph C. was released from prison on May 19, and the
allegations of his digital penetration of N.R. happened within four days. N.R. disclosed
the incident to numerous people, and the caseworker told Courtney C. that N.R. had been
consistent in her disclosure. Courtney C. admitted that her divorce to Joseph C. had not
yet been filed, he was still living with her, and his mother came with her to court that day.
Courtney C. did not believe that Joseph C. was a danger to her children in that she had “not
seen him do anything dangerous towards” her or her children. Courtney C. knew Joseph
C. had a history of domestic violence and had violated prior orders of protection.
¶ 31 Courtney C. testified that if she believed that Joseph C. had done anything sexually
inappropriate to her children, she would have turned him in and would not allow him
around the children. However, she said she would have to see something inappropriate to
know that it happened. Because Joseph C. was never allowed to be alone with the children,
because of what N.R. allegedly told her, and because she did not hear N.R. scream from
the next room, she did not believe the allegation. During arguments, the State requested
that the permanency goal be changed to substitute care pending termination of parental
rights. The guardian ad litem (GAL) agreed with the recommended goal change. The trial
14
court found that Courtney C. had not made reasonable efforts or reasonable progress. Thus,
the court allowed the goal change.
¶ 32 That same day, the trial court entered another written permanency order, finding
that neither parent had made reasonable progress or efforts toward M.R. and N.R.’s return
home in that Courtney C. was not making reasonable progress on her service plan tasks,
and Michael R. was not participating in services. The permanency goal was changed to
substitute care pending termination of parental rights. The court found this goal was
appropriate because M.R. and N.R. had been in the care of DCFS for more than one year,
and their parents were not making reasonable progress or efforts.
¶ 33 On October 29, 2019, Caritas filed a permanency hearing report, which indicated
that M.R. and N.R. were still doing well in their home and their caregiver was still
committed to caring for them as long as it was needed. As to Courtney C.’s service plan
progress, it was reported that she had started recording her visitations and any
conversations about this case for “her protection.” Courtney C. had been sporadic in her
visitations with her youngest child, and her communications with the children’s foster
parent had deteriorated. Courtney C. requested that her visitation with the children take
place with Joseph C.’s mother supervising, and this request was denied. Courtney C. was
told she could bring Joseph C.’s mother along to her visits if it made her more comfortable,
but she turned down this offer. After Courtney C. again expressed concerns about having
her visitations at the foster parent’s home, it was offered that they could take place at the
foster parent’s sister’s home, but Courtney C. refused this as well.
15
¶ 34 The report further indicated that Joseph C. was arrested on June 24, 2019. Joseph
C. had begun his recommended services but was “minimally engaged” and had not
completed any of his homework assignments. Michael R. was not engaged in services at
that time. Courtney C. had been attending supervised visits with the children. Courtney
C. and Joseph C. reported that they had not filed for divorce due to financial problems;
however, the caseworker repeated that the couple intended to stay together even if they
were divorced. Courtney C. still did not recognize the risk of harm to her children from
Joseph C. It was further noted that Joseph C. had several outbursts in which he made
threats against Courtney C., the caseworker, and the foster parent of his youngest daughter.
¶ 35 On November 13, 2019, the trial court held another permanency hearing. Michael
R. signed and submitted a voluntary consent to the termination of his parental rights and to
the adoption of M.R. and N.R. Upon inquiry, the court accepted the voluntary consent. A
permanency review order was entered pursuant to stipulation. The court found that
Courtney C. had not engaged in reasonable services or reasonable progress, and custody
and guardianship were to remain with DCFS.
¶ 36 Also, on November 13, 2019, the trial court entered another written permanency
order, finding that Michael R. had voluntarily surrendered his rights, and that Courtney C.
had not made reasonable progress toward the children’s return home as she was attending
services, but she had not made progress. The permanency goal remained substitute care
pending termination of parental rights.
¶ 37 On January 10, 2020, Caritas filed a permanency hearing report, which indicated
Courtney C. was being uncooperative in the planning of a visitation schedule that
16
accommodated her children rather than herself. During an incident on December 23, 2019,
Courtney C. made a threat during her visitation with her youngest child that she was “going
to go to Tiffany’s [(the caseworker’s)] house in the middle of the night and kill her in her
sleep.” This threat was reported to Courtney C.’s therapist and the authorities. This caused
concern about her mental health and stability.
¶ 38 Also, according to the report, Joseph C. was arrested on January 6, 2020, and on
that date, Courtney C. told him “that she was on her way home and would tell the police
he was not present.” This was heard by a worker who was supervising visitation between
Joseph C. and his daughter. Joseph C. also requested that the caseworker present lie to the
police and say he was not at home. The worker refused to do so and became fearful.
Courtney C. claimed during this incident that things in her home were broken and her
youngest child was screaming and scared, while the worker reported that the baby was not
upset but was laughing and playful throughout. It was reported that Courtney C.
“continue[d] to show signs of an altered sense of reality.”
¶ 39 Since December 18, 2019, Joseph C. had repeatedly threatened the caseworker and
said he would sue the agency and worker. Courtney C. and Joseph C. were still together,
and Courtney C. did not recognize the risk of harm to her children from Joseph C. In
addition to prior threats and incidents, the report indicated that Joseph C. informed the
caseworker that he contacted KMOV4 and they were going to report on his innocence.
Joseph C. requested copies of the children’s interviews that were completed through the
child advocacy center (CAC). When refused, Joseph C. and Courtney C. threatened to sue
17
and expose DCFS and the courts for “wrongdoings” and to prove their “innocence.” A
record of Joseph C.’s conversations with Caritas staff was attached to the status report.
¶ 40 On January 15, 2020, the State filed a petition for termination of parental rights and
for appointment of a guardian with power to consent to adoption against Courtney C. The
petition alleged that Courtney C. was unfit to have M.R. and N.R. under section 1(D)(m)(i)
of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2018)) in that she failed to make
reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for their removal during two
nine-month periods after the adjudication of neglect and under section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the
Adoption Act (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)) in that she failed to make reasonable progress toward their
return during two nine-month periods after the adjudication of neglect. The State
contended that it was in the children’s best interests that Courtney C.’s rights be
permanently terminated, and that M.R. and N.R. be placed in DCFS guardianship. The
relevant time period was July 2018 through the date of the filing of the petition.
¶ 41 Prior to trial, four of the six DCFS family service plans completed in this case were
filed with the trial court. The four service plans filed with the court were those completed
by Kimmel; there had been two service plans prepared prior to Kimmel being assigned the
case. The first was completed February 12, 2019, which indicated that Courtney C. was
rated unsatisfactory for the services of completing a parenting program, following the
recommendations of the parenting program, and demonstrating appropriate parenting skills
during interactions with her children. She was also rated unsatisfactory for completing an
offense risk and safety planning class and following its recommendations. Courtney C.
was rated satisfactory for actively participating in individual therapy. Joseph C. was rated
18
unsatisfactory as to his service of completing a sexual perpetration evaluation and
complying with its recommendations.
¶ 42 Another DCFS family service plan was completed on April 16, 2019, which
indicated that Courtney C. was rated satisfactory for her services. However, as to desired
outcome for Courtney C. to “attend offense risk education and safety planning classes to
better understand the behaviors and dynamics of offenders and to understand the
importance of protective planning,” she was rated unsatisfactory because Kimmel did not
believe that Courtney C. had “learned anything from this class nor has she made any efforts
to understand the trauma” the children had suffered because of Joseph C. Joseph C. was
rated unsatisfactory as to his service of completing a sexual perpetration evaluation and
complying with its recommendations.
¶ 43 An additional DCFS family service plan was completed on October 10, 2019, which
indicated that Courtney C. was rated satisfactory for completing a parenting program but
unsatisfactory for following the recommendations of the parenting program and
demonstrating appropriate parenting skills during interaction with her children. She was
again rated satisfactory for participating in individual therapy. Courtney C. was rated
unsatisfactory for completing an offense risk and safety planning class, but satisfactory for
following the recommendations of the offense risk and safety planning class. Joseph C.
was rated satisfactory for his services.
¶ 44 The final service plan was dated April 15, 2020, which indicated that Joseph C. was
rated satisfactory for completing his sexual perpetration evaluation, but he was rated
unsatisfactory for the service of following any and all recommendations of the sexual
19
perpetration evaluation. It was noted that Joseph C. had been incarcerated and had not
completed services, and that he was not showing progress during his time in treatment.
¶ 45 Courtney C. was rated satisfactory for the service of completing a parenting program
because she completed a parenting class. It was noted that she needed to continue to utilize
the skills she learned in parenting classes during interactions with her children. As to the
service of following “the recommendations of the parenting program and demonstrat[ing]
appropriate parenting skills during interaction with her children,” Courtney C. was rated
unsatisfactory because she did not show parenting abilities during her visitations with her
children. It was also reported that Courtney C. did not engage in parenting activities such
as feeding, bathing, homework, or other engagement. Courtney C. was rated satisfactory
on the service of actively participating in individual therapy. It was reported that she was
still working with Jubilee House in Greenville. The last services related to sex offense risk
and safety planning classes. As to the service of completing the class, Courtney C. was
rated unsatisfactory because her counselor reported that she was not making adequate
progress in addressing the concerns. The therapist reported the therapy being offered was
not sufficient, as he believed Courtney C. was autistic. As to the service of following the
recommendations of the offense risk and safety planning class, Courtney C. was rated
satisfactory because she was working with her counselor on these issues.
¶ 46 On June 22, 2020, Caritas filed a status report, which indicated that Joseph C. was
in prison, and that he was having “endless conversations” with Courtney C. but had “not
reached out to [the case] worker in regard to the potential to complete services while
incarcerated.” It was further reported that Courtney C. remained with her husband despite
20
acknowledging the risk that he posed to her children. Courtney C. had started “placing
blame of her behaviors and actions on a potential diagnosis of autism.” However, the report
stated that the likelihood of an autism diagnosis had been ruled out during a psychological
evaluation. Courtney C. claimed she was not with Joseph C.; however, she continued to
have phone contact with him as reported by the supervisors of Courtney C.’s visitations
with her children.
¶ 47 The trial court held a fitness hearing on July 15, 2020, during which the following
testimony was presented. Kimmel testified that when she was assigned to the case in
November 2018, she reviewed the case file and had a transitional meeting with the previous
caseworker and the supervisor on the case. She took those steps to get acquainted with the
case prior to meeting with the family and to determine what services were already in place.
Her understanding was that the minors came into DCFS care due to neglect from Courtney
C. in that the children were exposed to a sexual perpetrator living in their home. The
minors first came onto DCFS’s radar after it was reported that N.R. had been sexually
abused by Joseph C. During the CAC interview with the children, N.R. disclosed that
Joseph C. stuck his finger in her behind; M.R. witnessed this and also disclosed that it
happened. The reports were indicated, and in her review of the case file, Kimmel learned
that Joseph C. had an extensive history with sexual abuse of children. Kimmel also learned
that Courtney C. married Joseph C. in March 2017, while he was incarcerated for child
pornography.
¶ 48 Kimmel testified that when a case was opened, the DCFS integrated assessment
process was initiated. As part of this process, a clinical team through Southern Illinois
21
University in Carbondale would interview the parents, paramours, and the children. The
clinical assessment identified barriers that could stand in the way of a family being
reunited. DCFS then created a family service plan based off the needs and
recommendations gathered as a part of the integrated assessment. The service plan outlined
all the services being requested of the parent and the children prior to reunification.
Kimmel testified that Courtney C.’s prognosis for reunification with her children was poor.
The initial service plan in this case was completed by the previous caseworker. In total,
there were six service plans completed for Courtney C., and the services listed in each plan
remained the same.
¶ 49 According to Kimmel, the main issue preventing Courtney C. from being reunited
with her children was her continued involvement with Joseph C. and that she allowed
someone who could be a danger to M.R. and N.R. to be around them. Kimmel again
testified about the circumstances giving rise to this case. Kimmel further stated that
Courtney C. and Joseph C. have a daughter, B.C., born in January 2019. B.C. was in foster
care at that time based on the same allegations against Courtney C. and Joseph C. that there
was a risk of harm and that a sex offender had access to the child.
¶ 50 Kimmel was then questioned as to the specifics of the family services plans in this
case. The services on Courtney C.’s service plan included parenting classes, individualized
mental health therapy, and sex offense risk education. When asked if Courtney C. had
been successful in her services, Kimmel responded in the negative. Courtney C. had
completed her parenting classes, but her visitation with her children did not reflect that she
had absorbed any information taught in those classes. She had attended therapy, but her
22
therapist indicated she had not made progress. Kimmel believed that Courtney C.’s most
important service was the sex offense risk therapy, which required classes on sexual abuse
offenders and the risk of harm they could cause to children.
¶ 51 In July 2018, Courtney C. completed the 13-week parenting program through
Lighthouse Pregnancy Center in Vandalia. She was deemed to have successfully
completed this service merely because she attended the classes. Kimmel had observed
Courtney C. with M.R. and N.R.; she typically played with them during her visits, but she
did not do parenting activities such as cooking dinner, homework, or bath time. She also
focused on one child at a time, which was concerning if she were to have to divide her
attention between her three children. Courtney C. had consistently visited with the children
throughout the case, with the supervised visitations beginning in her home. Due to N.R.’s
seizure disorder, it was hard for her to travel, as she experienced seizures during car rides.
Once the permanency goal was changed to substitute care pending termination of parental
rights, the visits moved to the foster parent’s home. The foster parent, who was Michael
R.’s mother, allowed Courtney C. extra visits with the children, and Courtney C. sometimes
took advantage of the extra visits. Kimmel testified that she did not see any improvement
in Courtney C.’s parenting skills from the time she was initially assigned the case; Courtney
C. had not been able to show that she had effective parenting skills. Kimmel rated Courtney
C. unsatisfactory on the parenting program service because she attended parenting classes
but made no progress in improving her parenting skills.
¶ 52 Individualized mental health therapy was the second task on Courtney C.’s service
plan. Kimmel believed therapy was important for Courtney C. to process the trauma
23
involved with the children going into care and to get to the root of where the abuse or
neglect originated to help her get past the barrier to the children returning home. This task
was included on every service plan prepared in this case. Courtney C. was rated
unsatisfactory on this task due to the fact she had made the effort to physically attend
therapy but did not make any progress in therapy. Kimmel reviewed Courtney C.’s
therapist’s reports; Kimmel testified that there had never been a time where Courtney C.
made progress and understood how she put her children at risk.
¶ 53 The third task on Courtney C.’s service plan was sex offense risk education.
Courtney C. was engaged in sex offense education through her individual counselor. From
the second service plan through the sixth service plan, Courtney C. was rated unsatisfactory
for this task because she continued to involve herself with Joseph C. and allowed him
contact with her children. Additionally, Kimmel believed that Courtney C. had not been
honest with her. On multiple occasions, Courtney C. told Kimmel she was not with Joseph
C. and that she was getting a divorce. At one point, Joseph C. was allegedly living in
another home that he would not provide an address for. However, Kimmel verified that
Courtney C. and Joseph C. were still together by driving by their home in Taylorville
numerous times and seeing both of their vehicles. Further, Joseph C. “made it very clear”
that he and Courtney C. were still together. Kimmel also verified that the couple was still
married according to the Christian County circuit court. Courtney C. consistently reported
that she did not believe that Joseph C. abused N.R., but instead thought the children’s foster
parent fabricated the allegation and convinced the children to report the abuse. That was
concerning to Kimmel because if there was no acknowledgement that the abuse happened,
24
then there was “no way to begin to restore the relationship” or for Courtney C. to make
progress in therapy or sex offender risk education. Kimmel testified that Courtney C. had
never admitted that Joseph C. committed the abuse on N.R., and she did not acknowledge
that he possessed child pornography.
¶ 54 Kimmel next testified that throughout the life of the case, she worked with Courtney
C. to regain custody of her children, made referrals for her, and paid for services.
Additionally, as a manner of oversight, Kimmel consulted with her supervisor about the
case, and her supervisor approved the service plans Kimmel provided for Courtney C. She
was also subject to administrative case reviews (ACRs), in which an independent
organization reviews the private agency working with DCFS, as well as the cases the
agency handles, every six months. The ACRs ensured that all DCFS standards were met,
and that the agency was making referrals appropriately based on DCFS policy and
procedure. During an ACR, Kimmel would rate parents on their service plan, and the ACR
reviewer would look to see whether they agreed with the rating. There were four ACRs
conducted in this case.
¶ 55 The first ACR took place on October 26, 2018, whereby all of Courtney C.’s
services were rated unsatisfactory. At the ACR, the service plan was reviewed with the
parents, and they discussed where the case stood. They reviewed the children’s progress
in school and therapies, and they reviewed the parent’s progress in therapy and other
services as well as the efforts the parent had expended on each of the services. Courtney
C. would have been told at the ACR if she was unsatisfactory in her services. Courtney C.
25
was told of the “red flags” in her case at the first ACR, which was the sex offense risk
education, and it was explained to Courtney C. why this was important.
¶ 56 The second ACR was held on April 24, 2019, at which time Courtney C. was
encouraged to work on the services and advised that her parental rights could be terminated
if she failed to work on the services. At that ACR, Joseph C. made threats against Courtney
C. about telling DCFS what he wanted her to tell them; Joseph C. also threatened a security
officer that was present. It was determined at the second ACR that Courtney C. had not
made progress and was rated “unsatisfactory.” The red flag at the second ACR was that
Courtney C.’s services had not been completed. The ACR reviewer found that Kimmel
was doing her job properly, that the services were appropriate, and agreed as to Courtney
C.’s progress and rating.
¶ 57 The next ACR was October 24, 2019, and Courtney C. was rated unsatisfactory on
all services. At that point, the ACR reviewer “was in agreement and requested that we file
a legal screen.” Kimmel testified that the legal screening process was a packet of
information “regarding the parents’ services, referrals, and efforts made in the case,” which
was then submitted to the DCFS legal team to review and determine whether the agency
had done everything that they could as far as referrals and progress of the parents. During
a legal screening, the agency asks DCFS to find that it is appropriate timing to file a petition
to terminate parental rights. The legal screening on Courtney C.’s case, which was
conducted 1½ years after the adjudication of neglect, was approved.
¶ 58 In December 2019, B.C.’s caregiver reported that Courtney C. threatened to kill
Kimmel and her family in their sleep. Kimmel believed the threat to be credible and
26
notified her supervisor as well as the GAL. Joseph C. had also been arguing with Kimmel
and B.C.’s caregiver about seeing B.C. on Christmas, and the caregiver indicated that she
did not feel safe supervising the visits between him and B.C. This incident led to a
deterioration between Joseph C., Courtney C., and Kimmel.
¶ 59 The final ACR took place in April 2020, during which Courtney C. was again rated
unsatisfactory. The ACR reviewer found that Kimmel was correct in everything she had
done in the case thus far. Kimmel testified that although Courtney C. had physically
attended services, Kimmel had not seen any change in Courtney C. from the beginning of
the case to the date of the fitness hearing. Kimmel believed that at the time of the hearing,
Courtney C. was still maintaining a relationship with Joseph C., which she found
concerning.
¶ 60 Kimmel was then asked whether there was anything else she wanted the trial court
to know during the fitness portion of the hearing. Kimmel testified that Joseph C. was
arrested in January 2020. When that arrest was occurring, a case assistant was present for
a visitation between Joseph C. and B.C. When the police arrived at the house, Joseph C.
asked the case assistant to lie and tell the police that he was not present. The case assistant
communicated with Kimmel during the incident that she was worried, and Joseph C. was
starting to get violent. He then called Courtney C., asked her to come home, and asked her
to tell the police that he was not present. Courtney C. came home from work, but the police
had already entered the house at that time.
¶ 61 At the time of the fitness hearing, Joseph C. was incarcerated on a parole or
probation revocation. Kimmel believed that was the only reason that Courtney C. was not
27
with Joseph C. at that time. Although Joseph C. was not a part of this case, he was a
paramour, so there were services he would have to complete in order for Courtney C. to be
reunified with her children. Specifically, Joseph C. would have to complete a sex abuse
perpetration evaluation and follow any recommended sex offender treatment. Joseph C.
attended the evaluation but failed to complete any recommended services. Joseph C. had
been openly hostile to Kimmel throughout the case and had threatened her. In the six years
that she had been a caseworker, this was the first case in which one of her clients wanted
to kill or hurt her. Kimmel also stated that Courtney C. “was very open to things” at the
beginning of the case but that had deteriorated.
¶ 62 Kimmel testified that Courtney C. had a psychological evaluation in March 2020,
and Kimmel’s review of the psychological evaluation raised concerns. The psychologist,
Dr. Frank Kosmicki, noted that Courtney C. presented as “fake good.” Dr. Kosmicki
further stated “that she was providing answers that she believed he wanted to hear rather
than the truth of what was *** actually happening.” This was consistent with what Kimmel
witnessed throughout the case.
¶ 63 Allison Heater, Kimmel’s supervisor, testified that she had been employed at Caritas
since January 2018. Prior to that, she was a case manager at Lutheran Child and Family
Services for about two years. Heater testified that as a supervisor, she reviewed integrated
assessments and service plans. She also reviewed cases to ensure they were overall
“headed in the right direction,” meaning family reunification if possible or to seek
permanency through adoption and guardianship if reunification was not possible. Heater
had been involved with this case since it was transferred to Kimmel in the fall of 2018.
28
Heater tried to be involved with the initial meeting with the family if possible, which she
did in this case. Heater found the main issue in this case to be Courtney C.’s failure to
protect the children and Joseph C.’s history of being a sex offender.
¶ 64 During this case, Heater and Kimmel met on a monthly, if not weekly, basis
regarding the case. Heater reviewed and agreed with the integrated assessment, the service
plans, and all the services; she also agreed with the unsatisfactory ratings. She believed
Kimmel had done her job in ensuring that the services were provided and in doing
everything she could do reunite this family. Heater did not believe that Courtney C. could
be reunited with the children at the time of the hearing because Joseph C. was still in the
picture. Courtney C.’s psychological evaluation revealed information about her prior
paramours and dependency traits, which suggested that even if Joseph C. were out of the
picture, there would likely be a similar paramour in her future. Heater believed that her
agency had done everything they could to provide services to Courtney C. Heater only met
with Courtney C. once per typical procedure, and thus, her opinion was based on Kimmel’s
assessment as well as all the reports, documents, and the psychological evaluation she
reviewed relating to the case. Heater reiterated that it was her standard operating procedure
to rely on the caseworkers she supervised to give her accurate information. After Heater’s
testimony, the State rested its case.
¶ 65 Courtney C. testified that she resided in a two-bedroom home in Taylorville.
Courtney C. believed that her children were removed from her care because of an allegation
of sexual penetration between Joseph C. and her then three-year-old daughter, N.R.
Courtney C. stated that she never saw “anything like that take place,” and she was there
29
“the whole time with [her] children.” She said she was present in the same room during
the diaper change when the incident allegedly took place. She testified that Joseph C. never
touched her daughters; she was the one who changed diapers and gave baths, and he was
never around when she completed those tasks. She believed that the incident never
happened, and her daughters were coached to say that it happened.
¶ 66 Courtney C. indicated that she had only been involved with two men (Michael R.
and Joseph C.) as she had a hard time with social interactions. Courtney C. agreed that she
was “more dependent” and would “generally go along with what a guy would do.” After
high school, she moved in with Michael R. and then she lived with Joseph C.; she never
lived alone until Joseph C. moved out in September 2019. Courtney C. said she told
caseworkers to come by her house and check that Joseph C. did not live there, but no one
did. She testified that neither Michael R. nor Joseph C. were physically abusive, that
Michael R. was verbally abusive, and that Joseph C. was controlling of her communication
with Michael R. Her mother was in an abusive relationship, and she was never taught how
to deal with that sort of situation. She was working with her counselor on those issues.
¶ 67 Courtney C. testified that she had been going to counseling since 2018; during that
time, she learned of characteristics to look for to avoid men who might be abusive or a
perpetrator. Courtney C. was aware Joseph C. had a substantial criminal history. She
regretted marrying and continuing a relationship with Joseph C. She was still married to
him, but their divorce was pending. Courtney C. would never leave him alone with her
daughters because he wanted to raise B.C. to be like him. In the months leading up to the
30
fitness hearing, their contact was only by phone and about B.C. Courtney C. testified that
she had only recently learned that she should have no communication with him at all.
¶ 68 On cross-examination, Courtney C. testified that she talked to Joseph C. on the
phone usually twice per day. She admitted that on every call she told Joseph C. that she
“love[d] him forever and always.” When asked if they talked about what their life would
look like after he got out of prison, she said that was only if he could “clear his name.” She
testified that she “ha[d] a love” for both Joseph C. and Michael R. because Michael R. gave
her two daughters and Joseph C. gave her one. Courtney C. then rested her case.
¶ 69 The trial court heard arguments from counsel, and the GAL gave his
recommendation, which was that the court find Courtney C. unfit as a parent for the reasons
outlined in the petition. The GAL further asserted that this case was not about Joseph C.,
it was about Courtney C. and “her ability or inability to protect the minor children from the
types of act that occurred.” The GAL thought the allegations of what Joseph C. did to N.R.
were “entirely foreseeable” when Courtney C. moved a sexual offender into her home. The
trial court then announced its findings, stating, “It’s unfortunate and I am totally shocked
by the lack of progress that she has made.” The court found Courtney C. had even
“backslid” during the life of the case. The court continued, “It is very clear that she has
not made reasonable efforts, has not made reasonable progress in either one of the time
frames.” Therefore, the court found that the State had proven, by clear and convincing
evidence, that Courtney C. was unfit to have M.R. and N.R. under section 1(D)(m)(i) of
the Adoption Act (id. § 1(D)(m)(i)) in that she failed to make reasonable efforts to correct
the conditions that were the basis for the children’s removal during any nine-month period
31
after the adjudication of neglect, and under section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act (id.
§ 1(D)(m)(ii)) in that she failed to make reasonable progress toward the children’s return
during any nine-month period after the adjudication of neglect.
¶ 70 On July 27, 2020, Caritas filed a best-interest report with the trial court, which
indicated that Courtney C. always visited her children but did not always engage in
parenting activities with them. She often focused on one child at a time. Courtney C. did
not take advantage of additional visitation time offered by the children’s foster parent. It
was further reported that N.R.’s seizures had greatly improved since she was removed from
Courtney C.’s home. M.R. was doing better in school and had increased her social and
emotional skills. M.R. and N.R. had been placed together with their paternal grandmother,
they were thriving in their placement, and they were reaching their developmental targets.
¶ 71 The best-interest report also stated that the children were seeing a counselor, who
believed they were doing “incredibly well” in their placement. M.R. and N.R. were very
close with their grandmother, who took the children to all of their appointments in addition
to seeking unconventional treatments for N.R.’s seizures. The report concluded by
recommending that the children remain with their foster parent and that it would be
detrimental to their well-being to be removed from their placement.
¶ 72 At the best-interest hearing on August 19, 2020, Kimmel testified that M.R. was
eight years old and N.R. was five years old. M.R. had been tested for autism but not
officially diagnosed, and N.R. had a seizure disorder. Kimmel found them to be “really
good girls,” who played well together and had wild imaginations. Since 2018, the minors
had been placed with their paternal grandmother, Donna File, who moved into a new home
32
to be an appropriate placement for the children. They lived in a second-story apartment
with enough bedrooms for the children to have their own, but they shared a room because
they liked it better that way. Kimmel visited the home three times per month. Kimmel had
observed the children interact with File, and she testified that they looked to File as their
grandmother but also as a parent; they hugged and doted over File. They also looked to
her for direction and instruction. The children were safe in that placement.
¶ 73 Kimmel testified that M.R. and N.R. were able to develop their own identities in
File’s home. They had their own likes, she allowed them to pick their own favorite colors
and movies, and they got to choose their own clothing and shoes to fit their personalities.
There was extended family that M.R. and N.R. interacted with; they also had a relationship
with their maternal grandmother. Kimmel believed that the minors had an attachment to
File, they showed love to File, and File showed love to and always encouraged them. The
children were comfortable in File’s home. They also had ties to the local Greenville
community. Both children had special needs; M.R. with autism and N.R. with her seizures,
although the frequency of the seizures had reduced to less than one per week. They both
had individualized education plans (IEPs) at school. File had taken on those issues. The
children received the appropriate services at school, and File attended the IEP meetings.
Kimmel testified that File was willing to provide permanency to the children, she had the
resources to care for them, and she offered visitation to both parents. Kimmel said there
was never an instant that made her question the children’s placement with File.
¶ 74 On cross-examination, Kimmel testified that Courtney C. exercised her visitation
rights, and the children were excited when she arrived at the residence. File continued to
33
allow weekly visits even after the goal changed to termination of Courtney C.’s parental
rights, which Courtney C. took advantage of but did not take advantage of additional
visitation time offered by File. Kimmel lastly testified that the minors loved Courtney C.
¶ 75 File testified that she resided in Greenville, she had been at her current residence for
almost three years, and she chose the apartment because it was large enough for the
children. She had been involved in M.R. and N.R.’s lives since birth. There was an
approximate eight-month period when File lived with them and took care of M.R. while
Courtney C. was in Afghanistan with the Army. After that, File was the minors’ babysitter,
she kept them every other weekend, and she generally saw them every day until their
parents were divorced. During that time, there was no one, aside from the parents, who
had more contact with the children than File. After the divorce, the minors were placed
with different babysitters, so File did not see them.
¶ 76 When the children were first placed into care, they were placed with File’s sister
until File could find appropriate housing. File still saw the girls almost every day during
that time. File testified that when the children were first placed with her, she had a difficult
time with them due to misbehavior. It was hard to get the children to understand structure
and discipline, but with time they thrived with structure. File testified that M.R. had
autism, had difficulty understanding daily tasks, and had to be constantly reinforced. At
the time of the hearing, M.R. had friends, which she did not have when she first moved in
with File. M.R. had a difficult time in kindergarten prior to and in the beginning of her
placement with File, but that changed, and she loved and did well in first grade. File was
very proud of M.R.’s progress. File testified that N.R. was doing wonderful in
34
kindergarten, and stubbornness was her only behavioral problem. N.R. had frequent
seizures when she was first placed with File, at least 20 per day, but after getting the correct
medication on a set schedule she only had one seizure per month. N.R. took her
medication, was not as tired, and was able to learn, whereas prior to getting the seizures
under control, she would be tired, sleep, and miss school.
¶ 77 File testified as to the activities she did with the children as well as vacations they
had taken together. File also testified that she received help with the children from her
sister, who was the foster parent of the children’s eight-year-old cousin. In return, File
would babysit the children’s cousin, and they were all “really close.” File referred to M.R.
and N.R. as “her children” because she considered them her children, she loved them, and
she was willing and capable of providing for them even with their special needs. Her
family had welcomed the children as if they were File’s own children. File continued to
allow Michael R., who was her son and who signed directed consents to allow File to adopt
the children, to see them and planned to continue that. File asked the children what they
wanted in the future, and they indicated they were happy with the situation as it stood. As
supervisor for Courtney C.’s visitation, File knew the minors loved their mother, but she
did not see a mother-child bond; she believed that the children treated Courtney C. more
like a big sister. File intended to continue offering Courtney C. visitation in the future.
However, she testified that she would protect the children and their safety would be a top
priority. After File testified, the State rested.
¶ 78 Courtney C. testified that since the fitness hearing, she had Joseph C. served with
divorce papers and stopped all communications with him. Courtney C. testified that M.R.
35
was like her when she was a little girl. She further testified that N.R.’s seizures started
when Courtney C. and Michael R. divorced. The seizures got worse, and N.R. was
hospitalized for five days in 2017. Courtney C. struggled caring for her two children as a
single mother because of her own issues, which her counselor believed were autistic traits.
However, now that she had been to ongoing counseling, she believed that she could better
handle the problems of being a single parent to two children. Courtney C. believed the
minors went through a lot of stress during her divorce with Michael R., and she
acknowledged that what the children went through at that time was her fault. Courtney C.
loved her children, and they loved her. She obtained employment at the post office to
support them. Courtney C. stated that she had a very strong bond with her children.
¶ 79 On cross-examination, Courtney C. admitted that she struggled in the past.
Courtney C. testified that File and her family had been supportive, had always been there
for the children, and had done a good job raising them. Courtney C. had seen a lot of
improvement in the children. Courtney C. agreed that File loved the children like they
were her own, and the children loved her back. File had done everything she could to keep
Courtney C. as part of the children’s lives, and the children were happy with File. After
Courtney C. testified, she rested, and the trial court heard closing arguments. The GAL
recommended that the court enter an order terminating Courtney C.’s parental rights.
¶ 80 In relevant part, the trial court stated:
“Courtney, there’s no doubt that you love those daughters. That’s not
enough. That’s not enough. You know, I have no doubt that you love your children.
*** They deserve more than that, Courtney. They deserve it, and that’s why in this
hearing it talks about what’s called best interest, because I remember those hearings
that I’ve done with you and the risks that you put those children at with [Joseph C.]
36
and how you defended him in all these hearings, and there’s no doubt and I don’t
think there’s any doubt in anyone in this room that [Joseph C.] was a terrible choice.
Courtney, I’m glad that you’re receiving counseling. I hope you continue
with it. I have no idea what-all you have gone through in your lifetime, but I want
to do what I can that the—that your two daughters don’t have the same experiences
that you have and don’t make the same choices that you have made, and I think
that’s in their best interests. And, you know, I still have to go back to the fitness
hearing. I have to go back to every hearing that we’ve had in this case and think: Is
it in the best interest for those children to be with Courtney, or is it in their best
interest to terminate the parental rights of Courtney. *** Mr. Abell [(Courtney C.’s
counsel)] eloquently said that you have made progress. There’s no doubt in my
mind that you have made progress. Unfortunately, I remember how you were in
those early hearings and how you gave the chance, gave the opportunity for putting
those two girls at risk.”
The court then took the matter under advisement.
¶ 81 After the best-interest hearing, the trial court entered a written order terminating
parental rights, finding that termination of Courtney C.’s parental rights was in M.R. and
N.R.’s best interests. The court again found that the State proved by clear and convincing
evidence that Courtney C. was unfit because she failed to make reasonable progress or
efforts toward M.R. and N.R.’s return during two nine-month periods after an adjudication
of neglect. On August 20, 2020, the court entered a permanency order, changing the
permanency goal to adoption. Courtney C. filed her notice of appeal on September 17,
2020, and an amended notice of appeal on September 18, 2020.
¶ 82 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 83 Courtney C. initially argues that the trial court erred in finding her unfit under
sections 1(D)(m)(i) and (ii) of the Adoption Act (id. §§ 1(D)(m)(i), (ii)) because the State
failed to prove her unfit by clear and convincing evidence. She additionally contends that
the court’s best-interest determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
37
¶ 84 A. Fitness Determination
¶ 85 Termination of parental rights proceedings are governed by the Juvenile Court Act
(705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2018)) and the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/0.01 et seq.
(West 2018)). In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d 476, 494 (2002). A petition to terminate parental
rights is filed under section 2-29 of the Juvenile Court Act, which delineates a two-step
process in seeking to terminate parental rights involuntarily. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West
2018). The State must first establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent is
an unfit person under one or more of the grounds of unfitness enumerated in section 1(D)
of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2018)). 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2), (4) (West
2018); In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d at 494-95. Because each of the statutory grounds of unfitness
is independent, the trial court’s finding may be affirmed where the evidence supports a
finding of unfitness as to any one of the alleged grounds. In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198, 217
(2002).
¶ 86 Our courts have recognized that parental rights and responsibilities are of deep
importance and should not be terminated lightly. In re K.B., 314 Ill. App. 3d 739, 748
(2000). Thus, parental rights may be terminated only after a finding of unfitness that is
supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re Gwynne P., 346 Ill. App. 3d 584, 590
(2004). A finding of unfitness will not be disturbed unless it is against the manifest weight
of the evidence. In re R.L., 352 Ill. App. 3d 985, 998 (2004). A finding is against the
manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or the
determination is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence. In re D.F., 201 Ill.
2d at 498. A trial court’s finding of unfitness is given great deference because it has the
38
best opportunity to view and evaluate the parties and their testimony. In re Daphnie E.,
368 Ill. App. 3d 1052, 1064 (2006). A reviewing court, therefore, does not reweigh the
evidence or reassess the credibility of the witnesses. In re M.A., 325 Ill. App. 3d 387, 391
(2001).
¶ 87 Here, the trial court found Courtney C. unfit for the following two grounds:
(1) under section 1(D)(m)(i) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2018)),
she failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for M.R.
and N.R.’s removal during any nine-month period after the adjudication of neglect,
specifically between July 2018 through January 2020; and (2) under section 1(D)(m)(ii) of
the Adoption Act (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)), she failed to make reasonable progress toward M.R.
and N.R.’s return during any nine-month period after the adjudication of neglect,
specifically between July 2018 through January 2020.
¶ 88 Reasonable efforts and reasonable progress are two distinct grounds of unfitness
under section 1(D)(m). In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1066. Reasonable efforts
relate to the goal of correcting the conditions that caused the removal of the child and are
judged by a subjective standard based upon the amount of effort that is reasonable for that
particular parent. In re R.L., 352 Ill. App. 3d at 998. The court must determine whether
the parent has made earnest and conscientious strides toward correcting the conditions that
led to the removal of the minor from the home. In re L.J.S., 2018 IL App (3d) 180218,
¶ 24. In contrast, reasonable progress is judged using an objective standard that focuses on
the steps the parent has taken toward the goal of reunification. In re Jacorey S., 2012 IL
App (1st) 113427, ¶ 21. The standard by which progress is measured is the parent’s
39
compliance with the court’s directives and the service plans in light of the conditions that
gave rise to removal and other conditions that later become known and would prevent the
court from returning custody of the child to the parent. Id. “Reasonable progress exists
when the trial court can conclude that it will be able to order the child returned to parental
custody in the near future.” In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1067.
¶ 89 The State identified the two relevant 9-month periods for reasonable efforts and
progress as the first 18 months immediately following the July 17, 2018, adjudication of
neglect. As such, the relevant time periods were identified as July 2018 through April 2019
and April 2019 through January 2020. The trial court found that reasonable efforts or
reasonable progress had not been made between the July 17, 2018, adjudication of neglect
through January 2020, when the petition for termination of parental rights was filed.
¶ 90 The record reveals that the children were brought into care because Joseph C. was
a registered sex offender who lived with Courtney C. and her children. It was also reported
that there was a risk of sexual abuse to the children and of parental criminal behavior.
Giving rise to the sexual abuse risk finding, the report indicated that M.R. and N.R. had
both disclosed that Joseph C. stuck his fingers in N.R.’s buttocks. Courtney C. denied the
allegation. Throughout the life of the case, Courtney C.’s service plan tasks were to
(1) complete an offense risk and safety planning class and comply with all
recommendations, (2) actively participate in individual therapy, and (3) complete a
parenting program and comply with all recommendations. During the two nine-month
periods after the July 2018 adjudication of neglect, Courtney C. physically attended
40
parenting classes, participated in therapy, and worked with her therapist on the sex offense
risk and safety planning issues.
¶ 91 Nevertheless, the record reveals that Courtney C.’s visitations with her children did
not reflect that she had absorbed any of the information taught in her parenting classes.
When Kimmel observed Courtney C.’s visits with the children, Courtney C. typically
played with them rather than completing parenting activities such as cooking dinner,
homework, or bath time. Courtney C. also focused on one child at a time, which was
concerning if she were to have to parent and divide her attention between her three children.
Kimmel testified at the fitness hearing that she had not seen an improvement in Courtney
C.’s parenting skills and Courtney C. had not been able to show that she had effective
parenting skills. Similarly, Courtney C.’s therapist reported that she had not made progress
in her individualized mental health therapy. Upon review of Courtney C.’s therapist’s
reports, Kimmel testified that there had never been a time where Courtney C. made
progress and understood how she put her children at risk.
¶ 92 As to her most important service of sex offense risk education, Courtney C. was
repeatedly rated unsatisfactory for this task because she continued to involve herself with
Joseph C. and allowed him contact with her children. Kimmel also found Courtney C. to
be dishonest about her involvement with Joseph C., with there being multiple occasions
when Courtney C. told Kimmel she was not with him or that she was getting a divorce.
Notwithstanding any efforts Courtney C. made to divorce Joseph C., she indicated to
Kimmel that the two of them planned to stay together even if they were not legally married.
Perhaps most indicative of Courtney C.’s lack of progress throughout the relevant time
41
frame, she consistently reported that she did not believe that Joseph C. abused N.R. and
blamed the children’s foster parent for the allegation. Courtney C. also failed to
acknowledge that Joseph C. was guilty of possessing child pornography. Courtney C.
admitted during the fitness hearing that she talked to Joseph C. twice per day although he
was incarcerated, she told him she “love[d] him forever and always” on every phone call,
and she denied the allegations against him.
¶ 93 Based on the evidence presented at the fitness hearing, Courtney C.’s failure to
improve her parenting skills, and her failure to acknowledge the sexual abuse Joseph C.
committed against N.R. as well as the risk he posed to the children, we agree with
the trial court’s conclusion that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that
Courtney C. was unfit in that she had not made reasonable efforts or progress during the
two nine-month periods immediately following the adjudication of neglect.
¶ 94 B. The Best-Interest Determination
¶ 95 If the court finds that the parent is unfit, the matter proceeds to a second hearing, at
which the State must prove that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the
child. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2018); In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d at 495. Following
a finding of parental unfitness, the focus shifts entirely to the child. In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d
347, 364 (2004). At the best-interest stage, all considerations must yield to
the best interest of the child, and the parent’s interest in maintaining a parent-child
relationship yields to the child’s interest in a stable, loving home life. Id. At this point, the
State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of parental rights is
in the child’s best interest. Id. at 366.
42
¶ 96 In reaching a best-interest determination, the trial court must consider, within the
context of the child’s age and developmental needs, the following factors: (1) the child’s
physical safety and welfare; (2) the development of the child’s identity; (3) the child’s
familial, cultural, and religious background and ties; (4) the child’s sense of attachments,
including love, security, familiarity, continuity of affection, and the least disruptive
placement alternative; (5) the child’s wishes and long-term goals; (6) the child’s
community ties; (7) the child’s need for permanence, including the need for stability and
continuity of relationships with parent figures and siblings; (8) the uniqueness of every
family and child; (9) the risks related to substitute care; and (10) the preferences of the
person available to care for the child. In re Dal. D., 2017 IL App (4th) 160893, ¶ 52; see
also 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2018).
¶ 97 Here, the trial court found that termination of Courtney C.’s parental rights was in
M.R. and N.R.’s best interests. In so deciding, the court found that Courtney C. put the
children at risk by staying with Joseph C. and that she repeatedly defended him during the
hearings on this case. Although the court believed that Courtney C. loved the children, it
found that was not enough, and the children deserved “more than that.” We conclude that
Courtney C. has not established that the court’s best-interest finding was against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 98 At the best-interest hearing, Kimmel testified that M.R. was eight years old and N.R.
was five years old, they were “really good girls” who had been in care since 2018, and they
had been placed with their paternal grandmother. The children were safe in that placement,
and all their needs were being met. The children looked to their foster mother as a
43
grandparent but also a parent, they hugged and doted over her, and they looked to her for
direction and instruction. The children were attached to their grandmother, and they were
satisfied in their placement. The children were able to develop their own identities in File’s
home, and they had extended family they interacted with. File was taking the appropriate
steps to improve the children’s special needs, and they had both improved significantly
since they had been in her care. The children had ties to the Greenville community and
were doing well in school.
¶ 99 File was willing to provide permanency to the children, she had the resources to
care for them, and she offered visitation to Courtney C. and Michael R. Although File
intended to continue offering visitation to both parents, she understood the need to protect
the children and their safety would be a priority. Although the children loved Courtney C.
and were excited when she visited them, File thought they looked to Courtney C. more as
an older sister rather than a parent. The best-interest report determined that it would be
detrimental to the children’s well-being to be removed from their placement with File.
Kimmel said there was never an instant that made her question their placement with File.
¶ 100 Similarly, the GAL recommended that it was in the best interests of the children for
Courtney C.’s parental rights be terminated, based in large part on File’s testimony. The
GAL noted that the children deserved permanence, that they had thrived with File, and that
she offered them stability. He noted that the children had made progress “and they have to
be able to continue to make that progress, and Mrs. File can give them that.” The GAL
found it “heart-wrenching” that File wanted the children to maintain some level of
relationship with their natural parents so they would not be left wondering where that
44
relationship went. He noted that File could do that with boundaries and supervision that
would allow the girls to be safe. Given the above evidence, we conclude that, after
considering the statutory factors, the trial court’s finding that it was in M.R. and N.R.’s
best interests to terminate Courtney C.’s parental rights was not against the manifest weight
of the evidence.
¶ 101 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 102 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Bond
County.
¶ 103 Affirmed.
45