In re P.S.

NOTICE
2023 IL App (4th) 230026-U FILED
This Order was filed under
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is May 15, 2023
NO. 4-23-0026 Carla Bender
not precedent except in the
limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate
IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
under Rule 23(e)(1).
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
In re P.S., a Minor ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) Tazewell County
Petitioner-Appellee, ) No. 18JA122
v. )
Derek S., )
Respondent-Appellant). ) Honorable
) David A. Brown,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE CAVANAGH delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Steigmann and Knecht concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the circuit court’s unfitness finding was
not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 In July 2021, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of respondent,
Derek S., as to his minor child, P.S. (born in April 2015). In September 2022, the circuit court
granted the State’s petition and terminated respondent’s parental rights. (P.S.’s mother’s parental
rights were also terminated. However, she is not a party to this appeal.) Respondent appeals the
unfitness finding, arguing it is against the manifest weight of the evidence given the progress he
asserts he made in his required services. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On July 3, 2018, the State filed a petition seeking the adjudication of the minor as
neglected under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b)
(West 2018)). In particular, the State alleged the parents had ongoing domestic violence and
substance abuse issues. On October 26, 2018, P.S.’s parents stipulated to the allegations in the
petition. On January 3, 2019, the circuit court adjudicated the minor neglected due to being in an
environment injurious to his welfare. In a separate dispositional order, the court adjudged the
parents unfit to care for the minor for reasons other than financial circumstances alone, made him
a ward of the court, and placed custody and guardianship with the Illinois Department of Children
and Family Services (DCFS).
¶5 On July 19, 2021, the State filed a petition to terminate parental rights. The State
alleged respondent was unfit for failing to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor
in the nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect spanning October 15, 2020, to July
15, 2021, pursuant to the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2020)).
¶6 On June 23, 2022, the circuit court commenced the hearing on the State’s petition.
We summarize the testimony as pertinent to the instant appeal.
¶7 Margaret Kelch, the caseworker and later the supervisor for the parents’ case during
the nine-month period at issue, testified regarding the array of services required for each parent.
Such services included obtaining substance abuse assessments and undergoing any recommended
treatment, parenting classes and individual counseling, and, as to respondent, anger management
counseling. The court admitted the service plans dated January 25, 2021, and July 6, 2021, into
evidence.
¶8 Kelch also testified regarding respondent’s behavior during her interactions with
him. In or around October or November 2020, Kelch referred the minor for counseling. While
speaking with the mother on the phone about this, Kelch heard respondent in the background
“screaming,” “yelling,” “cussing,” and “calling [Kelch] obscene names,” as well as calling Kelch
-2-
“ ‘sick’ ” for referring the minor to counseling. Respondent’s behavior during that conversation
prompted Kelch to reschedule a home visit. In November 2020, respondent commented about
wanting to “take off” with the minor. Later, in early 2021, Kelch informed respondent that visits
with the minor were being suspended on the recommendation of the minor’s therapist, and
respondent called Kelch an obscene name during that conversation. Kelch explained that while she
could not be certain as to any recent incidents of domestic violence (though the mother appeared
to have bruising on her arms and face when she attended an administrative case review meeting in
January 2021), respondent was “screaming and yelling frequently” during his interactions with
Kelch and even expressing threats on Facebook to take the minor. Respondent tested positive for
marijuana nine times during this period, but the agency did not require him to undergo any
additional substance abuse services.
¶9 Respondent testified to participating in a parenting class, substance abuse
treatment, anger management, and domestic violence counseling. Anger management in particular
“helped” him in “how to react to things.” He denied any domestic violence during the nine-month
period in question.
¶ 10 The State requested the circuit court find by clear and convincing evidence the
parents did not make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor during this period. While
the court previously ordered respondent to address domestic violence in his individual counseling,
the notes from that service were “pretty vague in terms of what topics were actually discussed”
such that progress on this issue could not be demonstrated; this was “quite important to a finding
of reasonable progress” overall.
¶ 11 Respondent’s counsel acknowledged the behavior with the caseworker but argued
it “really [was] a [sic] discontent but nothing to suggest that there was exhibiting of anger
-3-
management [sic] towards the child.” There was no police report regarding any violence towards
either the mother or the minor. Respondent’s counsel urged the circuit court to find the State had
not met its burden of proving respondent’s unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, arguing,
“There’s nothing to suggest that [respondent] was not *** actively involved and also making
progress in his treatment or his therapy.”
¶ 12 The guardian ad litem acknowledged respondent participated in more services than
the mother but argued the focus should not be on “checking off boxes here.” Instead, she
maintained the circuit court should consider whether respondent had made “fundamental changes,”
which the guardian ad litem argued respondent had not, focusing on his ongoing anger issues.
¶ 13 In its September 15, 2022, ruling, the circuit court acknowledged respondent
engaged in “a number of the services including parenting class” and a “drug and alcohol
assessment where no treatment was recommended,” even after he tested positive for marijuana
nine times during this period. But the court was concerned about respondent’s ongoing behavioral
issues, noting that “while he did do anger management class, it still appeared that he had some
struggles controlling his emotions and his behaviors,” as manifested by incidents in which he
“threatened to take [the minor] at one point in time” and “[w]as screaming and calling a caseworker
obscene names and references.” The court opined that “[w]hile [respondent] had done a number
of things that were asked of him, we were never any closer to returning [the minor] to his care
during that nine-month period of time,” and it found “that the State has proven by clear and
convincing evidence that [respondent] as well was unfit based upon the failure to make reasonable
progress.”
¶ 14 On December 8, 2022, the circuit court found it in the minor’s best interests to
terminate respondent’s parental rights.
-4-
¶ 15 This appeal followed.
¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 17 Respondent argues the circuit court’s unfitness finding is against the manifest
weight of the evidence. Specifically, respondent contends he “either completed or made substantial
progress towards the completion [of] his services during the relevant period.” Respondent
maintains his testimony regarding addressing domestic violence in his individual counseling is
unrebutted by evidence showing otherwise, which the State had the burden to furnish. Respondent
also takes issue with the court “unduly fixat[ing]” on his “perceived” emotional and behavioral
problems.
¶ 18 We note respondent’s appellate brief “seeks reversal of the [circuit] court’s finding
that [he] *** failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor during the
nine-month period of October 15, 2020 to July 15, 2021, and concomitant dispositional order of
December 9, 2022, terminating [his] parental rights,” but respondent grounds his appeal on the
single issue of whether the unfitness finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Accordingly, we review only the court’s unfitness finding.
¶ 19 Termination of parental rights under the Juvenile Court Act is a two-step process.
In re Keyon R., 2017 IL App (2d) 160657, ¶ 16. Parental rights may not be terminated without the
parent’s consent unless the circuit court first determines, by clear and convincing evidence, the
parent is unfit as defined in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2020)).
In re Gwynne P., 215 Ill. 2d 340, 354 (2005). Pursuant to section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act
(750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2020)), a parent may be found unfit if he fails to “make reasonable
progress toward the return of the child to the parent during any 9-month period following the
adjudication of neglected *** minor.” This court has defined “reasonable progress” as follows:
-5-
“ ‘Reasonable progress’ is an objective standard which exists when the court, based
on the evidence before it, can conclude that the progress being made by a parent to
comply with directives given for the return of the child is sufficiently demonstrable
and of such a quality that the court, in the near future, will be able to order the child
returned to parental custody. The court will be able to order the child returned to
parental custody in the near future because, at that point, the parent will have fully
complied with the directives previously given to the parent in order to regain
custody of the child.” (Emphases omitted.) In re L.L.S., 218 Ill. App. 3d 444, 461
(1991).
See In re Ta. T., 2021 IL App (4th) 200658, ¶¶ 51, 55-57.
¶ 20 We will not disturb a finding of unfitness unless it is against the manifest weight of
the evidence. In re J.H., 2020 IL App (4th) 200150, ¶ 68. “A finding is against the manifest weight
of the evidence only if the evidence clearly calls for the opposite finding [citation], such that no
reasonable person could arrive at the circuit court’s finding on the basis of the evidence in the
record [citation].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.¶ 21 The State argues it presented clear and convincing evidence of respondent’s failure
to make reasonable progress during this period in that, “[a]lthough respondent completed the
majority of classes, the caseworker testified that respondent never applied what he learned from
anger management classes.” In support of its position, the State refers to respondent’s angry and
obscene outbursts during his interactions with the caseworker and other agency personnel. We
agree with the State.
¶ 22 While a parent shows effort by engaging in services, a parent fails to make
reasonable progress if he does not implement the skills taught. See In re R.L., 352 Ill. App. 3d 985,
-6-
999 (2004); see also Ta. T., 2021 IL App (4th) 200658, ¶¶ 54-57 (finding a father who “fully
complied with the service plan” failed to make reasonable progress because he continued to be
involved in domestic violence incidents). “[T]here [is] a significant difference between going
through the motions, checking off the boxes, and mechanically doing what is asked of the parent
and actually changing the circumstances that brought the children into care.” Ta. T., 2021 IL App
(4th) 200658, ¶ 56. “The point of requiring parents to attend classes and engage in services *** is
so parents apply what they learn *** such that the court can be confident that the children will be
safe in their care.” (Emphasis in original.) Id.¶ 23 Here, Kelch testified about respondent frequently manifesting explosive behaviors
during the relevant nine-month period, including calling her obscene names, during interactions
either on the phone or in person. On one occasion, respondent’s behavior was such that Kelch had
to reschedule a home visit. Respondent also made comments on Facebook threatening to take the
minor. The circuit court found that notwithstanding respondent’s participation in anger
management counseling, “he had some struggles controlling his emotions and his behaviors,” as
manifested by incidents in which he “threatened to take [the minor] at one point in time” and
“[w]as screaming and calling a caseworker obscene names and references.” This is especially
significant in that, as reflected in the service plans admitted at the unfitness hearing, respondent
had engaged in anger management counseling in 2018, after the initiation of an intact case.
(Respondent’s counseling notes from Tazwood Mental Health Center likewise reflect respondent’s
prior completion of anger management services.) As the guardian ad litem observed, respondent
seems to have been “checking off boxes” with respect to participating in his required services
without truly developing the ability to manage his emotions and behaviors.
-7-
¶ 24 P.S. was removed from respondent’s care because of domestic violence and
substance abuse issues. One of the most important considerations in determining if a parent has
made “reasonable progress” is whether the parent has corrected the conditions that led to the child
being placed in the care of DCFS. See 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2020); see also Ta. T., 2021
IL App (4th) 200658, ¶ 55. Respondent’s continued anger management issues show he was not
any closer to having P.S. returned to his care by July 2021 than he was in October 2020.
¶ 25 Based on the evidence presented, the circuit court’s finding respondent was unfit
for failing to make reasonable progress toward the return of P.S. during the relevant nine-month
period was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 26 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 27 For the reasons stated, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.
¶ 28 Affirmed.
-8-