NOTICE 2026 IL App (4th) 251111-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is February 23, 2026 NO. 4-25-1111 not precedent except in the Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
In re A.A., a Minor ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Peoria County Petitioner-Appellee, ) No. 23JA81 v. ) Elijah C., ) Honorable Respondent-Appellant). ) David A. Brown, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Knecht and Vancil concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed, concluding no issue of arguable merit could be raised on appeal.
¶2 In September 2025, the trial court found respondent father, Elijah C., unfit and
unable to parent his minor daughter, A.A. (born in April 2023). See 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(p) (West
2024). The court appointed counsel to represent respondent, he appealed, and appellate counsel
filed a motion to withdraw, which the record shows was served on respondent. On our motion, this
court granted respondent until December 26, 2025, to file additional points and authorities. No
response was filed. After examining the record and executing our duties consistent with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and In re S.M., 314 Ill. App. 3d 682 (2000), we grant appellate
counsel’s motion and affirm the court’s judgment.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 In February 2022, before A.A. was born, respondent was declared partially
incapacitated and totally disabled. This was based on a finding respondent had significant mental
health and cognitive limitations. Accordingly, respondent’s grandmother was court appointed as
his guardian.
¶5 In May 2023, before respondent’s identity as A.A.’s father was known, the State
filed a petition to adjudicate A.A. neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act
of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-2(1)(b) (West 2022)) because her mother, Jamiya H.—who had a
history of mental illness, was found unfit in three previous juvenile proceedings, and lacked stable
housing—was hospitalized in a psychiatric unit. (Jamiya H. is not a party to this appeal.) In
September 2023, A.A. was adjudicated neglected, and the trial court found it was in A.A.’s best
interests to be made a ward of the court, with the Illinois Department of Children and Family
Services (DCFS) having guardianship. Almost two years later, the court entered an order
establishing parentage, which named respondent A.A.’s father.
¶6 Thereafter, a dispositional report was prepared. It revealed respondent and
Jamiya H. met at a psychiatric treatment facility and conceived A.A. Respondent was unemployed,
had a ninth-grade education, and suffered from many learning disabilities. He also was diagnosed
with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, which resulted in his admission to a psychiatric hospital
several times and prohibited A.A. from meeting him because he was in treatment on scheduled
visitation days. Although respondent was willing to parent A.A., the assigned caseworker
determined respondent’s mental health challenges, limited education, and unemployment made
him unfit and unable to parent her.
¶7 In September 2025, the trial court held the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings.
Neither respondent nor his grandmother appeared. After the State gave a proffer outlining
-2- Jamiya H.’s unresolved mental health issues, previous unfitness findings, and lack of stable
housing, the parties, including respondent’s attorney, stipulated to the finding of neglect.
¶8 At the dispositional hearing held immediately thereafter, respondent’s attorney
asked for a continuance because neither respondent nor his grandmother were in court. The trial
court learned respondent’s attorney and the caseworker gave both respondent and his grandmother
notice of the hearing and the caseworker reminded them of the hearing the day it was held. The
caseworker told the court they said they would appear at the hearing via Zoom, and the caseworker
said she texted them a link. Based on this, the court denied the request for a continuance. The court
observed the Zoom link would remain open and respondent and his grandmother would be able to
participate should they appear. They never did.
¶9 Proceeding with the dispositional hearing, the trial court stated it received and
reviewed the dispositional report, which did not need to be corrected or updated, and heard the
caseworker’s testimony about services for respondent. The court found respondent’s mental health
and cognitive delays made him unfit and unable to parent A.A. Thus, it concluded it was in the
best interests of A.A. to remain a ward of the court, and it outlined a reasonable dispositional plan
for respondent, which would accommodate where he lived and not overwhelm him given his
conditions.
¶ 10 This timely appeal followed.
¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 12 On appeal, appellate counsel moves to withdraw, asserting, “After a thorough
review of the record and applicable law, counsel concludes that any appeal on behalf of
[respondent] would be frivolous and patently without merit under Anders *** and [S.M.]”
Consistent with S.M., counsel (1) included with his motion a memorandum, which cited matters
-3- in the record arguably supporting the appeal; (2) identified issues which could be raised on appeal
and explained why those issues lacked arguable merit; (3) concluded the case lacks any viable
grounds for appeal; and (4) attached to his memorandum transcripts from the adjudicatory and
dispositional hearings. S.M., 314 Ill. App. 3d at 685.
¶ 13 Counsel submits it would be frivolous to argue errors were made in (1) adjudicating
A.A. neglected, (2) finding respondent unfit and unable to parent A.A., and (3) denying
respondent’s trial counsel’s motion for a continuance. We agree this appeal presents no
nonfrivolous issues.
¶ 14 The Act contains a two-step process for removing a minor from the custody of his
or her parents and making the minor a ward of the court. In re Z.L., 2021 IL 126931, ¶ 58. The
first step is to hold an adjudicatory hearing to determine whether the minor is abused, neglected,
or dependent. 705 ILCS 405/2-18(1) (West 2024); Z.L., 2021 IL 126931, ¶ 59. A court may find a
minor neglected even if the parents are not both neglectful. See Z.L., 2021 IL 126931, ¶ 59 (“ ‘The
only question to be resolved at an adjudicatory hearing is whether or not a child is neglected, and
not whether every parent is neglectful.’ ”) (quoting In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d 441, 467 (2004)).
The State must prove its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. ¶ 61. We may reverse
a finding of neglect only if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence, which means “the
opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” Id.
¶ 15 Here, the adjudication of neglect was based on Jamiya H.’s actions, which is proper.
A.A. was adjudicated neglected because Jamiya H. suffered from mental health issues, was
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE 2026 IL App (4th) 251111-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is February 23, 2026 NO. 4-25-1111 not precedent except in the Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
In re A.A., a Minor ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Peoria County Petitioner-Appellee, ) No. 23JA81 v. ) Elijah C., ) Honorable Respondent-Appellant). ) David A. Brown, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Knecht and Vancil concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed, concluding no issue of arguable merit could be raised on appeal.
¶2 In September 2025, the trial court found respondent father, Elijah C., unfit and
unable to parent his minor daughter, A.A. (born in April 2023). See 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(p) (West
2024). The court appointed counsel to represent respondent, he appealed, and appellate counsel
filed a motion to withdraw, which the record shows was served on respondent. On our motion, this
court granted respondent until December 26, 2025, to file additional points and authorities. No
response was filed. After examining the record and executing our duties consistent with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and In re S.M., 314 Ill. App. 3d 682 (2000), we grant appellate
counsel’s motion and affirm the court’s judgment.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 In February 2022, before A.A. was born, respondent was declared partially
incapacitated and totally disabled. This was based on a finding respondent had significant mental
health and cognitive limitations. Accordingly, respondent’s grandmother was court appointed as
his guardian.
¶5 In May 2023, before respondent’s identity as A.A.’s father was known, the State
filed a petition to adjudicate A.A. neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act
of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-2(1)(b) (West 2022)) because her mother, Jamiya H.—who had a
history of mental illness, was found unfit in three previous juvenile proceedings, and lacked stable
housing—was hospitalized in a psychiatric unit. (Jamiya H. is not a party to this appeal.) In
September 2023, A.A. was adjudicated neglected, and the trial court found it was in A.A.’s best
interests to be made a ward of the court, with the Illinois Department of Children and Family
Services (DCFS) having guardianship. Almost two years later, the court entered an order
establishing parentage, which named respondent A.A.’s father.
¶6 Thereafter, a dispositional report was prepared. It revealed respondent and
Jamiya H. met at a psychiatric treatment facility and conceived A.A. Respondent was unemployed,
had a ninth-grade education, and suffered from many learning disabilities. He also was diagnosed
with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, which resulted in his admission to a psychiatric hospital
several times and prohibited A.A. from meeting him because he was in treatment on scheduled
visitation days. Although respondent was willing to parent A.A., the assigned caseworker
determined respondent’s mental health challenges, limited education, and unemployment made
him unfit and unable to parent her.
¶7 In September 2025, the trial court held the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings.
Neither respondent nor his grandmother appeared. After the State gave a proffer outlining
-2- Jamiya H.’s unresolved mental health issues, previous unfitness findings, and lack of stable
housing, the parties, including respondent’s attorney, stipulated to the finding of neglect.
¶8 At the dispositional hearing held immediately thereafter, respondent’s attorney
asked for a continuance because neither respondent nor his grandmother were in court. The trial
court learned respondent’s attorney and the caseworker gave both respondent and his grandmother
notice of the hearing and the caseworker reminded them of the hearing the day it was held. The
caseworker told the court they said they would appear at the hearing via Zoom, and the caseworker
said she texted them a link. Based on this, the court denied the request for a continuance. The court
observed the Zoom link would remain open and respondent and his grandmother would be able to
participate should they appear. They never did.
¶9 Proceeding with the dispositional hearing, the trial court stated it received and
reviewed the dispositional report, which did not need to be corrected or updated, and heard the
caseworker’s testimony about services for respondent. The court found respondent’s mental health
and cognitive delays made him unfit and unable to parent A.A. Thus, it concluded it was in the
best interests of A.A. to remain a ward of the court, and it outlined a reasonable dispositional plan
for respondent, which would accommodate where he lived and not overwhelm him given his
conditions.
¶ 10 This timely appeal followed.
¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 12 On appeal, appellate counsel moves to withdraw, asserting, “After a thorough
review of the record and applicable law, counsel concludes that any appeal on behalf of
[respondent] would be frivolous and patently without merit under Anders *** and [S.M.]”
Consistent with S.M., counsel (1) included with his motion a memorandum, which cited matters
-3- in the record arguably supporting the appeal; (2) identified issues which could be raised on appeal
and explained why those issues lacked arguable merit; (3) concluded the case lacks any viable
grounds for appeal; and (4) attached to his memorandum transcripts from the adjudicatory and
dispositional hearings. S.M., 314 Ill. App. 3d at 685.
¶ 13 Counsel submits it would be frivolous to argue errors were made in (1) adjudicating
A.A. neglected, (2) finding respondent unfit and unable to parent A.A., and (3) denying
respondent’s trial counsel’s motion for a continuance. We agree this appeal presents no
nonfrivolous issues.
¶ 14 The Act contains a two-step process for removing a minor from the custody of his
or her parents and making the minor a ward of the court. In re Z.L., 2021 IL 126931, ¶ 58. The
first step is to hold an adjudicatory hearing to determine whether the minor is abused, neglected,
or dependent. 705 ILCS 405/2-18(1) (West 2024); Z.L., 2021 IL 126931, ¶ 59. A court may find a
minor neglected even if the parents are not both neglectful. See Z.L., 2021 IL 126931, ¶ 59 (“ ‘The
only question to be resolved at an adjudicatory hearing is whether or not a child is neglected, and
not whether every parent is neglectful.’ ”) (quoting In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d 441, 467 (2004)).
The State must prove its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. ¶ 61. We may reverse
a finding of neglect only if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence, which means “the
opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” Id.
¶ 15 Here, the adjudication of neglect was based on Jamiya H.’s actions, which is proper.
A.A. was adjudicated neglected because Jamiya H. suffered from mental health issues, was
admitted to a psychiatric hospital for treatment, was previously found unfit, and lacked stable
housing. Any argument the trial court should not have adjudicated A.A. neglected based on these
facts would be without arguable merit. See In re Tyianna J., 2017 IL App (1st) 162306, ¶ 54
-4- (finding the respondent’s ongoing mental health issues and parenting deficiencies with respect to
the minor’s siblings supported a finding of anticipatory neglect at the adjudicatory hearing).
¶ 16 Having addressed A.A.’s adjudication of neglect, we next consider whether the trial
court should have found respondent unfit and unable to parent A.A. If the trial court determines at
the adjudicatory stage that the minor is abused or neglected, the court then moves to the next step
of the procedure set forth in the Act, which is the dispositional stage. Z.L., 2021 IL 126931, ¶ 60
(citing 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2) (West 2018)). “At the dispositional hearing, the trial court
determines whether it is consistent with the health, safety, and best interests of the minor and the
public that the minor be made a ward of the court.” Id. “Prior to committing a minor to the custody
of a third party, such as DCFS, a trial court must first determine whether the parent is unfit, unable,
or unwilling to care for the child.” In re M.M., 2016 IL 119932, ¶ 21 (citing 705 ILCS 405/2-27(1)
(West 2012)). At the dispositional hearing, “[a]ll evidence helpful in determining these questions,
including oral and written reports, may be admitted and may be relied upon to the extent of its
probative value, even though not competent for the purposes of the adjudicatory hearing.” 705
ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2024); see In re M.D., 2022 IL App (4th) 210288, ¶ 63 (“Essentially,
there are no rules of evidence governing what the court may receive and consider at the
dispositional hearing.”).
¶ 17 The State bears the burden of proving unfitness at a dispositional hearing by a
preponderance of the evidence. In re K.E.S., 2018 IL App (2d) 170907, ¶ 51. “We will not reverse
a trial court’s finding of unfitness, unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Id.
Again, “[a] decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion
is clearly apparent.” Id.
¶ 18 Here, our review of the record shows that no nonfrivolous argument can be made
-5- that the trial court erred in finding respondent unfit and unable to care for A.A. and setting out a
reasonable dispositional plan. The evidence indicated respondent’s grandmother had guardianship
of respondent because he had significant mental health issues and learning disabilities, limited
education, and no employment. Because respondent is not able to care for himself, he certainly
cannot care for A.A. See In re Joseph J., 2020 IL App (1st) 190305, ¶ 30 (noting that a “finding
of inability is an independent and sufficient basis to support the court’s judgment”). The court’s
dispositional plan accommodated respondent’s limitations. Accordingly, any argument the court
erred in finding respondent unfit and unable to care for A.A. and setting out an appropriate
dispositional plan would also lack arguable merit.
¶ 19 Turning to the issue of whether the trial court should have denied respondent’s trial
attorney’s motion for a continuance, we observe a “[r]espondent does not have an absolute right
to a continuance in proceedings pursuant to the *** Act.” In re S.W., 2015 IL App (3d) 140981,
¶ 32. “In proceedings pursuant to the Act, the determination whether to grant a continuance is left
to the discretion of the trial court.” Id. “We will not overturn the trial court’s decision absent
manifest abuse or palpable injustice.” Id.
¶ 20 Given respondent was represented by counsel, respondent and his grandmother
were given notice of the hearing, reminded of the hearing the day it was held, indicated the day of
the hearing they would join the hearing via Zoom, and were sent a link to participate in the hearing,
we agree with appellate counsel that any argument error arose when the trial court did not grant
respondent’s attorney a continuance would be without arguable merit.
¶ 21 As a result, we agree with appellate counsel there is no meritorious argument to be
raised on appeal.
¶ 22 III. CONCLUSION
-6- ¶ 23 For the reasons stated, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm
the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 24 Affirmed.
-7-