2021 IL App (5th) 210182-U NOTICE NOTICE Decision filed 11/02/21. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NOS. 5-21-0182, 5-21-0183 cons. Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to not precedent except in the the filing of a Petition for IN THE limited circumstances allowed Rehearing or the disposition of under Rule 23(e)(1). the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
In re E.M. and A.M., Minors ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Jefferson County. ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) v. ) Nos. 18-JA-12, 18-JA-13 ) Amy A.-M., ) Honorable ) Evan L. Owens, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE WHARTON delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Boie and Justice Welch concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The trial court’s orders finding that Amy A.-M. was an unfit parent were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and we affirm the orders. The trial court’s orders concluding that the best interest of the minor children was served by termination of Amy A.-M.’s parental rights were not manifestly erroneous, and we affirm the orders.
¶2 Amy A.-M. appeals from the trial court’s orders finding that she was an unfit parent and
that her parental rights should be terminated. On appeal, she argues that these orders are erroneous.
We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 E.M. is a female child born on July 16, 2011. A.M. is a female child born on October 10,
2012. Amy A.-M. is the mother of both children. Ryan M. is the father of both children. This
1 appeal was filed by Amy alone. Ryan will be referenced throughout this order because the cases
were combined in the trial court and because Ryan’s progress and efforts are an integral component
of the trial court’s orders finding that Amy was an unfit parent and that her parental rights must be
terminated.
¶5 Amy had a history of involvement with the Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS), and in 2008, a female child was removed from her care due to allegations of prescription
drug misuse and mental health issues. On November 29, 2010, Amy surrendered her parental rights
to that child.
¶6 This case began on August 9, 2017, when Amy contacted DCFS to ask for assistance. She
informed DCFS that she, Ryan, and the two children were homeless. The family was living in their
vehicle in Centralia. DCFS opened an intact family services case for Amy and the family. At some
point after the intact family case was opened, Amy and the children moved into Lifeboat Alliance,
a homeless shelter in Mt. Vernon.
¶7 On February 8, 2018, Amy was asked to leave Lifeboat Alliance because of substance
abuse issues. She admitted to a Lifeboat Alliance staff member that she would not pass a drug test
on February 7, 2018. Amy tested positive for opiates. She did not have a valid prescription for any
opiate. A search by Lifeboat Alliance staff located prescription bottles for Lyrica (a nerve pain
medication), naproxen (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory), and other drugs—none of which were
prescriptions in her name.
¶8 The State filed its petition for adjudication of wardship on February 13, 2018, regarding
E.M. and A.M. The State alleged that the minor children were neglected in that they were in an
environment injurious to their welfare because Amy was then homeless, continued to struggle with
substance abuse issues, and had not made substantial progress in her intact family services case
2 due to lack of cooperation. Amy refused to comply with counseling services, and she did not
complete a housing application. The State alleged that Ryan had two pending criminal cases in
Marion County including a charge for domestic battery in which Amy was the victim. In addition,
there was a no contact order entered between Amy and Ryan. Ryan had also been charged with
three felony counts including harassment of, communication with, and intimidation of a witness.
Ryan also did not have stable and appropriate housing. At that time, he was living in a motel but
had been homeless in the past. The State alleged that it was in the best interest of the minors to be
made wards of the court.
¶9 The shelter care hearing was held on February 13, 2018. Both Amy and Ryan agreed to the
temporary order that made E.M. and A.M. wards of the court.
¶ 10 The adjudicatory hearing was held on April 30, 2018. Both Amy and Ryan agreed to the
order adjudicating the children as neglected because the children were in an environment injurious
to their health and welfare. Amy stipulated that she was then unable to provide a stable and
appropriate home environment. Ryan stipulated that he had pending misdemeanor and felony
charges. On that same date, Amy and Ryan stipulated to the dispositional order. Amy and Ryan
were found to be unable to care for their children and to have not made substantial progress with
their service plans.
¶ 11 DCFS filed a status report with the court on June 18, 2018, in advance of the status hearing.
DCFS labeled E.M. and A.M. as being in a high-risk age group. When Amy tested positive for
opiates, she was the sole caregiver for the children. At that time, Amy was receiving intact family
services and was not making adequate progress. She refused counseling despite having a history
of mental health issues. A care provider reported that Amy was neither cooperative nor motivated
to make changes. E.M., who was then six years old, and A.M., who was then five years old, were
3 not potty-trained. DCFS noted that the lack of potty-training skills reflected Amy’s inability to
meet minimum parenting standards for the children.
¶ 12 Amy met with DCFS on June 13, 2018, to review her service plan. Amy had been regularly
participating in parenting classes since May 2018 and the agency reported that she was making
progress. She had also been participating in group therapy. DCFS referred Amy for individual
therapy and housing services. Amy had regular visits with her daughters and DCFS noted that the
visits were going well. A care worker was scheduled to begin participating in Amy’s visits with
her children.
¶ 13 On August 2, 2018, DCFS filed its status report with the court. Amy was continuing with
counseling services. She was also attending dialectical behavioral therapy groups and had
“graduated” to attending individual therapy sessions. Amy continued to work with Family
Foundations in its parenting program and was making progress. Amy was consistent with her visits
with her children. She was also working with DCFS providers on housing. Despite her progress
on services, Amy was still homeless and was staying with various friends in the Centralia area.
She also was unemployed and DCFS noted that she either needed to obtain employment or
disability benefits.
¶ 14 At the court’s August 6, 2018, status hearing, the court requested that DCFS increase the
mother’s visits with the children to two per week. The court set the permanency hearing for
October 22, 2018.
¶ 15 On October 22, 2018, DCFS filed its permanency hearing report with the court. At that
time, Amy continued to be unemployed and homeless. DCFS noted that Amy “continues to deal
with mental health issues that significantly interferes with her ability to function in her daily life.”
Amy was inconsistent with drug screens and had missed four of eight drug tests. The four that she
4 took were negative. DCFS indicated that Amy had not made satisfactory progress or reasonable
efforts toward the goal of reunification with her children. Amy continued to receive mental health
and other related therapies. She completed the Family Foundations parenting program. DCFS
planned to apply for funding to assist Amy with housing but could not do so until she obtained
employment as the funding was dependent upon Amy having a source of income to sustain the
housing expenses on her own. Both children were doing well in their Murphysboro foster
placement and in school. Amy was consistent with twice weekly supervised visits with the children
but struggled with providing discipline and was asked to be more mindful of the snacks and meals
she brought for the children because of dietary needs. DCFS listed the following service plan tasks
for Amy:
1. Cooperate with DCFS;
2. Improve her level of functioning by achieving an appropriate level of understanding
of mental illness and how this affects parenting and relationships;
3. Utilize positive methods of providing age-appropriate discipline with her children;
4. Achieve and maintain an alcohol and drug-free existence; and
5. Provide a safe, adequate, and clean housing arrangement.
DCFS recommended a permanency goal of returning the children home within 12 months.
¶ 16 The trial court entered its permanency order on October 22, 2018, adopting DCFS’s
permanency goal to return the children home to Amy within 12 months. The court found that Amy
had made reasonable efforts toward returning the minors home. The court did not find that Amy
had made substantial progress toward that same goal. The court maintained custody and
guardianship of the children with DCFS.
5 ¶ 17 DCFS filed its next status report on December 3, 2018. Amy had resumed her relationship
with Ryan despite the trial court’s warnings that doing so could jeopardize her own case. Amy
continued to participate in mental health services. In early November 2018, she overdosed on her
prescription medications, Lamictal and Zyprexa. She was in the intensive care unit in a Centralia
hospital for five days, followed by an approximate week in the psychiatric unit. The overdose
occurred after she argued with Ryan. Amy tested positive for benzodiazepines and cocaine on her
September 17, 2018, and October 15, 2018, drug tests. She did not appear for one scheduled drug
test in October 2018 and did not appear for four scheduled drug tests in November 2018. Amy
made no progress with obtaining housing and employment or disability benefits. Both children
continued to thrive in their foster placement and in school.
¶ 18 DCFS filed its permanency hearing report with the court on January 28, 2019. Amy was
rated as not making satisfactory progress or making reasonable efforts toward the reunification
goal. She remained unemployed and had begun residing in a Centralia motel room with Ryan.
Because of Amy’s drug overdose in November 2018, DCFS reworked her service plan tasks.
DCFS listed the following service plan tasks that Amy needed to address:
1. Improve her level of functioning by achieving an appropriate level of understanding
of mental illness and how this affects parenting and relationships;
2. Learn alternative ways to handle stress other than substance abuse;
3. Provide current consents for release of information between DCFS and service
providers;
4. Participate in an assessment/evaluation and counseling to determine the level of
service required to address mental health issues;
6 5. Cooperate with any recommendations made as a result of the mental health
assessment/evaluation;
6. Complete parenting classes;
7. Demonstrate what she learns in parenting classes in an ongoing basis during
interactions with her children;
8. Obtain employment or disability benefits and provide documentation to the
caseworker;
9. Obtain suitable housing;
10. Inform DCFS of all changes in address, phone number, employment, or household
composition within 24 hours;
11. Keep all appointments with DCFS and its caseworkers on scheduled and
unscheduled bases;
12. Complete a substance abuse assessment;
13. Cooperate with recommendations resulting from the substance abuse assessment;
14. Submit to random drug tests;
15. Sign paperwork for DCFS to communicate with the substance abuse provider; and
16. Discontinue the use of alcohol, illegal drugs, and nonprescribed medication.
Amy was still consistently engaged in visits. She and the children were bonded to each other.
However, DCFS reported that she continued to struggle with discipline and structure, and noted
that Amy was “mostly cooperative” with providing appropriate meals and accepting
recommendations when suggested. The permanency goal remained the same—to return the
children home within 12 months.
7 ¶ 19 On January 28, 2019, the trial court entered an agreed permanency order. The court found
that Amy had made reasonable efforts, but not substantial progress, toward returning the children
home.
¶ 20 DCFS and Amy participated in a child and family team meeting on March 1, 2019. The
purpose of the meeting was to outline and discuss Amy’s service plan goals, as well as expectations
for completion.
¶ 21 On July 8, 2019, DCFS filed its family service plan with the court. Amy had reportedly
made some progress in services and continued to consistently attend her visits with her children.
She was still unemployed, but she was receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
financial assistance, and she had applied for disability benefits. She and Ryan were living at a
Centralia motel. DCFS noted that Amy’s mental health continued to be an issue in that she had
trouble concentrating and making decisions, had low self-esteem, had a loss of interest in activities,
and had issues with overstimulation. She had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, anxiety,
obsessive compulsive disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. DCFS rated Amy as
satisfactory on the following action steps: parenting classes and use of parenting skills with the
children; completing a mental health assessment and appreciating the effects that her mental health
issues have on parenting and relationships; completing a substance abuse evaluation and
agreement to comply with all recommendations; discontinuing the use of alcohol and drugs;
obtaining housing at the Centralia motel; keeping all appointments with DCFS; and providing
DCFS with release forms. DCFS rated Amy unsatisfactory on the following action steps: obtaining
financial stability; keeping DCFS informed about changes in address; and cooperation with
psychological/psychiatric recommendations.
8 ¶ 22 On that same date, DCFS filed its permanency report with the court. In its list of service
plan objections for Amy, DCFS added that she must agree to take prescription medication only as
prescribed. DCFS noted that Amy’s mental health therapist stated that Amy was ready for
discharge for anxiety and depression. However, DCFS was concerned with the therapist’s
assessment because Amy was still taking prescribed psychiatric medications. DCFS went to the
Centralia motel for an unscheduled visit. No one answered the door, but it was noted that the
worker observed the curtains move, and so presumptively someone was inside but did not answer
the door. This case passed legal screening on May 24, 2019, because of the lack of progress on the
goals. DCFS stated:
“Amy continues to be in a relationship with Ryan despite knowing how his lack of progress has greatly affected her ability to have the children returned to her care. Ryan has not adequately addressed his need for domestic violence treatment or mental health services. As a result the conditions that brought the children into care have not been significantly corrected by the parents.”
¶ 23 The trial court entered its permanency order on July 8, 2019, finding that Amy had made
reasonable efforts, but not substantial progress, toward returning the children home. Custody and
guardianship of the children remained with DCFS.
¶ 24 DCFS filed its August 9, 2019, service plan with the court. In the report, DCFS indicated
that the case remained open due to Ryan’s “overall lack of significant progress and attendance in
services.” DCFS noted that he had not completed treatment in mental health services, psychiatric
services, or domestic violence services. Ryan also did not have a steady source of income. DCFS
stated: “Amy continues to participate in her relationship with Ryan *** despite knowing that his
lack of progress in services creates a barrier to her ability to have the children returned to her care.”
Amy remained unemployed and had not been approved for disability benefits despite repeated
attempts. She also declined an offer of housing services. DCFS rated Amy as unsatisfactory on the
9 following action steps: agreement to keep all appointments with DCFS; agreement to notify DCFS
of changes in address and other personal information; agreement to demonstrate progress on
mental health issues; agreement to be assessed for and complete recommended domestic violence
services; agreement to cooperate with any recommendations made resulting from her
psychological evaluation; agreement to stop all use of alcohol, illegal drugs, and nonprescribed
medications; agreement to submit to random drug testing (she missed a February 13, 2019, test);
agreement to obtain a form of financial support; and agreement to provide suitable housing.
¶ 25 On September 12, 2019, DCFS filed its status report with the court. DCFS reported that on
August 29, 2019, it completed an unannounced home safety check at the Centralia motel where
Amy and Ryan lived. Ryan answered the door but would not let the caseworker immediately
inside. Amy then came to the door and DCFS conducted its check. Flooring was missing from
around the toilet in the bathroom. DCFS noted no other safety issues. DCFS reported that Amy
refused habilitation services that would have assisted her in obtaining employment. DCFS reported
that Amy’s mental health therapist was concerned about Amy’s relationship with Ryan and had
asked the caseworker to refrain from discussing the content of Amy’s mental health report in
Ryan’s presence, noting that Amy could face potential safety issues if the information was
divulged. Finally, DCFS reported that Amy continued to have issues with substance abuse and
required testing.
¶ 26 On December 13, 2019, DCFS filed its permanency report with the court. DCFS reported
that it had not been able to conduct a follow-up safety check of the Centralia motel room to
determine if the flooring had been fixed in the bathroom. The caseworker went to the motel on
October 17, 2019, and observed that both vehicles were there, but no one answered the door. Amy
and Ryan continued to have separate visits with the children because Ryan had not begun domestic
10 violence services. DCFS recommended that the permanency goal be changed to substitute care
pending termination of parental rights.
¶ 27 On January 23, 2020, the court held its preliminary hearing. Amy and Ryan did not appear.
The court concluded that the appropriate permanency goal was substitute care pending
determination of termination of parental rights. The court found that Amy had not made reasonable
and substantial progress toward returning the children home.
¶ 28 DCFS filed its next service plan with the court on February 10, 2020. DCFS rated Amy as
unsatisfactory on the following action steps: agreement to keep all appointments with DCFS;
agreement to demonstrate progress on mental health issues; agreement to be assessed for, and
complete, recommended domestic violence services; agreement to cooperate with any
recommendations made resulting from her psychological evaluation; agreement to stop all use of
alcohol, illegal drugs, and nonprescribed medications; agreement to submit to random drug testing;
agreement to obtain employment or disability benefits; and agreement to provide suitable housing.
¶ 29 On July 4, 2020, DCFS filed its permanency report with the court. DCFS informed the
court that this case passed legal screening in May 2019 and that DCFS legal counsel had informed
the Jefferson County State’s Attorney’s office on August 15, 2019, that DCFS believed that
grounds for termination of parental rights existed. Amy informed DCFS that she was going to file
for a divorce from Ryan, that Ryan agreed to move out of the Centralia motel that they shared, and
that Ryan agreed to provide financial support to her and the children for “at least six months.”
However, DCFS had received no confirmation that Ryan left the home and/or that either parent
filed for divorce. Amy remained unemployed, with Ryan being her only source of financial
support. Amy failed to appear for her June 14, 2020, drug test. She did appear for a June 29, 2020,
test, which was positive for marijuana. DCFS stated that it had no knowledge of what psychiatric
11 medications, if any, Amy had been prescribed. DCFS stated that the foster parent for E.M. and
A.M. was willing to provide permanency for the girls if the care goal changed to adoption.
¶ 30 On July 17, 2020, the State filed its motion to terminate the parental rights of Amy and
Ryan. The State alleged that Amy was an unfit person because she had not made reasonable efforts
to correct the conditions that were the basis for removal of the children during any nine-month
period since the court adjudicated the children as neglected. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2018).
Alternatively, the State alleged that Amy was an unfit person because she had not made reasonable
progress toward the return of her children during any nine-month period since the children were
adjudicated as neglected. Id. § 1(D)(m)(ii). In a supplement to the motion to terminate, the State
stated that Amy had not made reasonable progress toward the return of her children during the
following nine-month periods: April 31, 2018, through January 31, 2019; October 22, 2018,
through July 22, 2019; April 23, 2019, through January 23, 2020; and/or July 8, 2019, through
April 8, 2020.
¶ 31 On July 20, 2020, the court held a permanency hearing and entered its permanency order.
The court found that the appropriate permanency goal was substitute care pending determination
of termination of parental rights. The court stated that Amy had not made reasonable and
substantial progress toward returning the children home.
¶ 32 On August 24, 2020, DCFS filed its family service plan with the trial court. DCFS rated
Amy unsatisfactory on the following action steps: agreement to keep all appointments with DCFS;
agreement to sign all necessary releases of information; agreement to demonstrate progress on
mental health issues; agreement to be assessed for, and complete, recommended domestic violence
services; agreement to cooperate with any recommendations made resulting from her
psychological evaluation; agreement to stop all use of alcohol, illegal drugs, and nonprescribed
12 medications; agreement to submit to random drug testing; agreement to obtain employment or
disability benefits; and agreement to provide suitable housing.
¶ 33 The trial court held a permanency hearing on January 23, 2021. The court noted that Amy
was inconsistent with substance abuse services and drug screens. The court stated that she had not
made substantial progress but had made some efforts. Overall, the court found that Amy had not
made reasonable efforts and substantial progress toward returning the children home.
¶ 34 On March 5, 2021, the trial court held the fitness hearing. Two individuals who worked on
these cases testified. K.D. Lynch, an employee of Community Resource Center, testified about her
involvement in Ryan’s service plan. Stacie Carr, a DCFS caseworker, testified about her
involvement with both Amy and Ryan throughout most of the case. Amy also testified. Ryan did
not appear at the hearing.
¶ 35 Lynch testified that she is currently a residential coordinator and supervises three homes in
Centralia and Vandalia. Before that position, she was a mental health and substance abuse
therapist, as well as coordinator of a domestic violence program called Men Challenging Violence
(MCV). In that capacity, she treated and worked with Ryan starting in July 2020. Lynch testified
that she completed his mental health assessment and enrolled him in services. Ryan was directed
to complete 24 weeks of MCV. He was discharged from the program for noncompliance.
¶ 36 Carr testified that she had been the caseworker for Amy and Ryan since April 2018. She
testified that the children came into care because of issues of domestic violence and substance
abuse. She reviewed Amy’s service plan action steps that were primarily related to substance
abuse, mental health, domestic violence, and parenting.
¶ 37 Carr testified that in August 2018 she rated Amy’s progress on the service plan as
unsatisfactory. Carr stated that the next service plan was dated February 10, 2019, and that at that
13 time, Amy “could have been rated satisfactory,” but during that review period, Amy had overdosed
with prescription medication in a suicide attempt. Amy also tested positive on a drug test in
October 2018. Amy had also moved back in with Ryan somewhere in the late summer or in the
early fall of 2018. Carr rated Ryan’s progress during this period as unsatisfactory. Carr testified
that the next service plan review was in August 2019. During that period, Ryan was not following
through on his services and was rated unsatisfactory. Both Amy and Ryan failed to appear for drug
tests. Carr testified that Amy’s progress was mostly satisfactory, but that the primary concern
involved her lack of employment, as was housing and her relationship with Ryan. The February
2020 service plan showed no change in Amy’s progress. Amy continued to live with Ryan, who
had not completed or actively participated in his services. Amy’s housing was not independent of
Ryan, and she still had no source of income.
¶ 38 Carr testified that she counseled Amy on multiple occasions that “due to Ryan’s lack of
progress and lack of willingness to cooperate with services, that it impacted her in a way that it
would prevent her from getting her children back in her care if we could deem the situation [with
Ryan] safe.” Carr testified that, at one point, Amy and Ryan talked about divorce, but when Carr
explained that it had to be a permanent separation to derive a benefit with their DCFS cases, they
decided to remain together.
¶ 39 Carr testified that Amy had completed most of her services, but the impasse on progress
was that she had no source of income and no independent housing from Ryan. Additionally, Carr
stated that there was another gentleman who was now living with Amy and Ryan, and she had not
been able to obtain information about him.
¶ 40 On cross-examination, Carr testified that Amy has never been employed but was
attempting to obtain disability benefits because of respiratory and mental health issues. Carr
14 acknowledged that Amy had completed many of her service plan objectives by the end of the first
service plan review period. However, despite that progress, DCFS still had behavioral concerns
about Amy. Carr testified that these behavioral concerns involved Amy’s ability and willingness
to protect her children—to choose the best interest of the children over her relationship with Ryan.
Carr explained that Amy’s completion of her service tasks and her consistent appropriate visits
with her children were basically “undone” by her continued relationship with Ryan, who was
making virtually no effort on his service plan objectives.
¶ 41 Amy testified that the DCFS case did not start because of a domestic violence situation.
Instead, Amy said that she had no financial means to support herself and the children and she was
then living in a shelter. She acknowledged that Ryan was criminally charged for a domestic
violence incident that involved her. Amy testified that because of the mental health counseling she
received, she now had new tools to deal with these situations. To cope, Amy said that she can walk
away to let things cool down. Amy testified that she was currently involved with “countless
numbers of groups” which have significantly helped her ability to handle stressors.
¶ 42 Amy testified that she was financially dependent upon Ryan. She said that she had filed for
disability benefits prior to this DCFS case on the basis that she has chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease. She has not been successful in obtaining disability benefits. Amy testified that she could
not obtain employment because of the prescription medications she takes, noting that she was
terminated from earlier employment because she fell asleep at work. She stated that she had not
ruled out becoming employed but to date nothing had “clicked.” Amy testified that she was
working on certification as a personal assistant through the Illinois Department of Human
Services—Rehabilitation Services. This opportunity became available to Amy three or four days
prior to the fitness hearing.
15 ¶ 43 Amy’s attorney asked her why she went back to Ryan when she knew that doing so would
prevent her from getting her children back. Amy responded that the only other choice she had
would be to go to “places” that she did not feel would be safe for her or the children. Amy explained
that her only other housing options were to live with acquaintances whose lifestyles would not be
appropriate for her children.
¶ 44 Amy testified that she tried to get Ryan to engage in his services but stated that he was
stubborn. She denied that the November 2018 overdose was a failed suicide attempt but
acknowledged that she was feeling “down” on that day because of the children.
¶ 45 On cross-examination, Amy said that E.M. was then nine years old, and A.M. was then
eight years old. In addition to these two girls, Amy testified that she had three other children. Casey
was close to 21 years old and lived in Missouri. Dale was then 19 years old. S. was then 12 years
old and had been adopted by another family.1
¶ 46 Amy denied that Ryan battered her more than one time. She said that if Ryan became
violent again, she would walk away “because [she] can’t determine on how he is going to react.”
Amy acknowledged that her children should not witness domestic violence.
¶ 47 Amy testified that she was aware that Ryan’s lack of progress would harm her case, stating:
“They said that when it came down to my service plan and his service plan, if I was totally
completed with mine and successful[—]if he didn’t, it would make me be unsuccessful too.”
¶ 48 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Ryan was unfit and set the best
interest hearing for April 1, 2021. The court took the matter of Amy’s fitness under advisement.
1 The record does not contain information about S.’s surname at the time of DCFS involvement or about the identity of S.’s biological father. After Amy surrendered her parental rights, S. was adopted and would presumably have taken a different surname. 16 ¶ 49 On March 15, 2021, the trial court entered its order finding that Amy was unfit, stating the
children were removed from her care because of housing and domestic violence/intimidation
allegations against Ryan. The court noted that Amy had worked toward her service plan objectives
and at times made reasonable efforts, but she never made substantial progress at returning the
children home. The court also found that after Amy moved back in with Ryan, she made no
reasonable efforts from that date forward. The court stated that Amy made the decision to move
into the Centralia motel with Ryan against the recommendations of DCFS, and in doing so, Amy
“ ‘gave up’ on the idea of being independent from [Ryan].” The court stated that Ryan had
completed no services and was a danger to the children, that the children were no closer to being
returned home than they were when the case began, that Amy was homeless without Ryan, and
that Ryan’s home was not safe for the children because of his presence. In conclusion, the court
found that the State had proven by clear and convincing evidence both that Amy made no
substantial progress toward the return of the children during any nine-month period and that Amy
made no reasonable efforts toward the return of the children between April 23, 2019, and January
23, 2020, and between July 8, 2019, through April 8, 2020.
¶ 50 The trial court held the best interest hearing on April 1, 2021. Amy and Ryan both
appeared. DCFS caseworker Stacie Carr testified. Foster parent Sue Beckman testified. Finally,
Amy testified.
¶ 51 Carr testified that she had observed the children in their current foster placement. She
described the foster mother’s home, including the bedrooms of the girls. She testified that the girls
had lived with their foster mother for three years. The interactions between the girls and the foster
mom have been positive. The girls refer to the foster mother as Grandma Sue. Both girls have done
exceptionally well in school. They attend Lutheran Emmanuel, a parochial school, in
17 Murphysboro. Carr testified that she recommended that the girls stay in their foster placement. She
stated that she has no concerns about the physical safety of the girls in that setting.
¶ 52 On cross-examination, Carr testified that she visits the children in the foster home once per
month. She acknowledged that Amy’s visits with the children go well and that the children are
bonded with her. Carr testified that there was a clear benefit to have Amy participate in the lives
of the girls, and that the foster mother had agreed to maintain a relationship with Amy if the
children can be supervised or safe during those visits. Carr stated that the children’s relationship
with Ryan was not as strong primarily because his participation in visits had been sporadic.
¶ 53 Sue Beckman testified that she had cared for the children for the past three years. Beckman
stated that she was currently retired. She first retired in 2013 but then took part-time jobs working
as a helper on school buses and then as an aftercare provider at her church. She testified that this
year she retired again because she did not feel that she had enough time to work with the girls after
school on their homework. Beckman testified that she owned her three-bedroom home and that
her income was derived from social security benefits and investments. She testified that she was
financially able to provide for herself and the girls. E.M. and A.M. each have their own bedroom.
Beckman enrolled the girls in a private school as soon as they were placed with her. There have
been no domestic violence issues in her home. Beckman testified that she has a son who lives in
Germany and two brothers living in Tennessee and Chicago. E.M. and A.M. have visited with all
of Beckman’s family members. Beckman testified that she had not directly spoken to the girls
about continuing to live with her. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the girls went to church regularly
and participated in gymnastics classes. Beckman testified that she purchased a trampoline for the
girls for exercise. She testified that she was willing to continue to provide a home for the girls on
a permanent basis.
18 ¶ 54 On cross-examination, Beckman stated that the girls were excited to visit Amy and at times
were sad on the drive back home. She testified that she had no doubt that Amy loved her daughters.
¶ 55 Amy testified that she was still having visits with her daughters one hour per week. Before
the pandemic, she would see them twice per week for two hours. She said that the decreased time
has been a difficult adjustment for her. Amy stated that she had no complaints about Beckman and
that she was very good to the girls. She believed that the girls loved Beckman. But Amy testified
that she wanted to maintain a presence in their lives, and she was fearful that if Beckman adopted
the girls she could cut Amy out. Amy stated that she would prefer that Beckman be named as the
legal guardian for the girls. She testified that A.M. always cries at the end of their visits, and so
she fears that being completely removed from the lives of her children would emotionally harm
them. On cross-examination, Amy testified that she was still living with Ryan.
¶ 56 On April 5, 2021, the trial court made a minute entry terminating the parental rights of
Amy and Ryan. The court noted that although it considered the guardianship option urged by Amy,
the children needed the permanence that the court could only provide by terminating the rights of
their parents. The court noted that Amy loves her children; that Amy and Ryan continued to reside
together in the Centralia motel; that Amy and Ryan continued to be in the “same cycle” despite
the numerous opportunities provided to them; that the children have lived with Beckman for three
years and were thriving and developing; that the children had the best chance for success by staying
in Beckman’s safe, secure, and adequate home; and that Beckman was committed to the process
and was willing to adopt the children. The court stated that based on the totality of the evidence,
and after consideration of all statutory best interest factors, termination of parental rights was
necessary. On May 13, 2021, the trial court entered its written order terminating the parental rights
and appointing a guardian with the power to consent to adoption.
19 ¶ 57 Amy appeals from the order finding her an unfit parent and from the order terminating her
parental rights.
¶ 58 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 59 On appeal, Amy argues that the trial court’s orders that she was an unfit parent and that her
parental rights should be terminated were erroneous. We disagree.
¶ 60 Section 2-29 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 provides the procedural basis for the
involuntary termination of parental rights. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2018). The procedure
involves two steps. With step one, the State must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
parent is unfit as defined by the Adoption Act. Id.; 750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2018); In re A.J., 269
Ill. App. 3d 824, 828 (1994). If the trial court finds that the parent is unfit, the process moves to
step two. With step two, the State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is in the
child’s best interest that the parent’s rights be terminated. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West
2018); In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329, 337-38 (2010).
¶ 61 On appeal from a trial court’s findings that a parent is unfit and that terminating the parental
rights is in the child’s best interest, the reviewing court must not retry the case but, instead, must
review the trial court’s findings to determine if the findings are against the manifest weight of the
evidence. In re A.W., 231 Ill. 2d 92, 104 (2008). A decision is contrary to the manifest weight of
the evidence if the opposite conclusion is apparent or when findings appear to be unreasonable,
arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. In re Vanessa K., 2011 IL App (3d) 100545, ¶ 28
(citing In re Joseph M., 398 Ill. App. 3d 1086, 1089 (2010)); In re S.R., 326 Ill. App. 3d 356, 360-
61 (2001).
¶ 62 We first review the evidence to determine if the State met its burden of proving, by clear
and convincing evidence, that Amy met any of the alleged definitions of an “unfit person”
20 contained in the State’s motion for termination of parental rights. The trial court determined that
the State met its burden of proof that Amy failed to make reasonable progress during any of the
nine-month periods, and that Amy failed to make reasonable efforts in two nine-month periods
after she reunited with Ryan: April 23, 2019, to January 23, 2020, and July 8, 2019, to April 8,
2020.
¶ 63 “Reasonable effort” is determined by a subjective standard that refers to the amount of
effort which is reasonable for that parent. In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1052, 1066-67 (2006).
The court must determine whether the parent has made committed and diligent efforts 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.
¶ 64 “Reasonable progress” is determined by an objective standard, based upon the amount of
progress measured from the conditions existing at the time custody was taken from the parent. In re
D.T., 2017 IL App (3d) 170120, ¶ 17 (citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1067). “The
benchmark for measuring a parent’s reasonable progress under section 1(D)(m) of the Adoption
Act encompasses the parent’s compliance with the service plans and court’s directives in light of
the condition that gave rise to the removal of the child and other conditions which later become
known that would prevent the court from returning custody of the child to the
parent.” Id. (citing In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 216-17 (2001)). A parent makes reasonable progress
when the trial court can find that the progress “is sufficiently demonstrable and of such a quality”
that the trial court may soon be able to order the return of the minor to the parent’s
custody. Id. (citing In re J.H., 2014 IL App (3d) 140185, ¶ 22).
¶ 65 We review the evidence in this case to determine whether the trial court correctly concluded
that Amy did not make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that resulted in the removal of
21 E.M. and A.M. from the home. Here, the conditions that were the basis for removal of the children
from the home began when Amy was told to leave the Lifeboat Alliance shelter because she tested
positive for opiates, and she and the children became homeless. DCFS created a service plan for
Amy to address the following concerns: psychiatric and psychological treatment, avoidance of
substances of abuse, obtaining housing and employment, participation in weekly supervised
visitation with her children, and parenting skills. Later, due to Ryan’s domestic violence charges,
DCFS added domestic violence services to her service plan.
¶ 66 Within the first year, Amy had successfully navigated many of the service plan objectives,
and she was very consistent with her weekly visits with the children. However, she still did not
have safe housing and did not have any means to support herself and the children.
¶ 67 Although not mentioned by the trial court in its order finding that Amy was an unfit parent,
the record on appeal lists numerous positive drug tests. The October 22, 2018, permanency hearing
report indicated that Amy had missed four of her eight drug tests. While the four that she took
were negative, the four that she failed to take were presumptive positives. Later, in the December
3, 2018, DCFS status report, DCFS reported that Amy tested positive for benzodiazepine and
cocaine on her September 17, 2018, and October 15, 2018, tests; did not appear for another test in
October 2018; and did not appear for four tests in November 2018. Again, the missed drug tests
were presumptive positives. Amy did not take her February 13, 2019, test. Later service plans and
status reports detailed Amy’s failure to comply with the scheduled drug tests. She tested positive
for marijuana on June 29, 2020, after failing to appear for her June 14, 2020, drug test. At the
January 23, 2021, permanency hearing, the court stated that Amy was inconsistent with substance
abuse testing. From the record, it appears that Amy did not have her substance abuse issues under
control, which would provide an unsafe home environment for the children.
22 ¶ 68 We also note that Amy never made any progress on obtaining housing or obtaining
employment or other means of independent financial support. Amy’s attempts to obtain disability
benefits began before this DCFS case, and she was repeatedly denied. From Amy’s testimony at
the fitness hearing, she had not worked for an appreciable amount of time. In September 2019,
DCFS reported that Amy rejected services to help her obtain employment. Amy testified that she
could not obtain employment because of the prescription medications she took. She testified that
no job category “clicked” for her. Finally, about three to four days before the fitness hearing, Amy
decided to begin the process to obtain certification as a personal assistant. Amy had the ability to
find employment throughout this case but willfully chose to remain unemployed. Remaining
unemployed prevented Amy from obtaining financial independence. Failing to obtain financial
independence prevented Amy from obtaining suitable housing for her children.
¶ 69 Although Amy did much personal work through the services offered to her by DCFS and
made reasonable efforts at the beginning of this case, that status changed when Amy returned to
live with her husband, Ryan. From the record, Ryan had no interest in working with DCFS and
completing the service plan action steps needed to reunite with his children. Most importantly, he
refused to complete the domestic violence program. As domestic violence had occurred in his
relationship with Amy, Amy’s return to Ryan’s home was fraught with safety issues for her and
for the children. We also note that Amy’s drug overdose in November 2018 occurred after an
argument with Ryan, not long after she moved back in with him. Despite numerous warnings by
the DCFS caseworker and the trial court that living with Ryan could halt her own progress, Amy
chose to remain with him. Her rationale was that if she moved out, she would be homeless again.
She stated that if she was homeless, DCFS would not let her have her children. Amy concluded
that she might as well continue to live with Ryan because DCFS would not return the children to
23 her if she lived with Ryan or if she chose to be homeless. Amy’s rationale misses the point. Amy’s
job as a parent was to give priority to her two children. Instead, she chose the man who had abused
her instead of her children.
¶ 70 We find that the trial court fully considered the evidence in the record and at the fitness
hearing. We conclude that the trial court’s finding that Amy was an “unfit person” was not contrary
to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re A.W., 231 Ill. 2d at 104.
¶ 71 Having determined that the trial court correctly found that Amy was an unfit parent, we
turn to the best interest of E.M. and A.M. Termination of a parent’s rights is an extreme act. In re
Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill. 2d 255, 274-75 (1990). A parent maintains a superior right to raise his
or her own children. Id. Once a parent has been determined to be unfit, “the parent’s rights must
yield to the child’s best interest.” In re Tashika F., 333 Ill. App. 3d 165, 170 (2002); In re J.L.,
236 Ill. 2d 329, 337-38 (2010). Until the court determines that a parent is unfit, the interests of
both the parent and the child are concurrent “to the extent that they both ‘share a vital interest in
preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship.’ ” In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 363
(2004) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 760-61 (1982)). After finding that a parent is
unfit, the State must establish proof that termination of a parent’s rights is in the child’s best interest
by a preponderance of the evidence. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2018); In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at
366.
¶ 72 “[A]t a best-interest[ ] hearing, the parent’s interest in maintaining the parent-child
relationship must yield to the child’s interest in a stable, loving home life.” In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d
at 364. The trial court must consider several factors within “the context of the child’s age and
developmental needs” when considering if termination of parental rights serves a child’s best
interest. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2018). These factors include:
24 “(a) the physical safety and welfare of the child, including food, shelter, health, and
clothing;
(b) the development of the child’s identity;
(c) the child’s background and ties, including familial, cultural, and religious;
(d) the child’s sense of attachments, including:
(i) where the child actually feels love, attachment, and a sense of being valued
(as opposed to where adults believe the child should feel such love, attachment, and
a sense of being valued);
(ii) the child’s sense of security;
(iii) the child’s sense of familiarity;
(iv) continuity of affection for the child;
(v) the least disruptive placement alternative for the child;
(e) the child’s wishes and long-term goals;
(f) the child’s community ties, including church, school, and friends;
(g) the child’s need for permanence which includes the child’s need for stability and
continuity of relationships with parent figures and with siblings and other relatives;
(h) the uniqueness of every family and child;
(i) the risks attendant to entering and being in substitute care; and
(j) the preferences of the persons available to care for the child.” Id.
¶ 73 In its April 5, 2021, minute entry decision, the trial court did not specifically identify which
factors it found important in concluding that the minor children’s best interest would be served by
termination of Amy’s parental rights. However, the court indicated that it had considered all
statutory factors. The court is not required to consider each factor individually in determining the
25 best interest of the child. In re Tajannah O., 2014 IL App (1st) 133119, ¶ 19; In re Tiffany M., 353
Ill. App. 3d 883, 893 (2004). The trial court may also consider the likelihood of adoption. In re
Tashika F., 333 Ill. App. 3d at 170. The court can also consider the length of the child’s relationship
with his or her foster parents and the emotional and/or physical effect of a change of placement on
the well-being of the child. In re Brandon A., 395 Ill. App. 3d 224, 240 (2009) (citing In re Austin
W., 214 Ill. 2d 31, 50 (2005)).
¶ 74 On appeal from an order terminating a parent’s rights, the reviewing court gives great
deference to the trial court’s decision because the trial court is in a much better position to see the
witnesses and judge their credibility. In re K.B., 314 Ill. App. 3d 739, 748 (2000). A court’s finding
that termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interest will not be reversed on appeal unless
it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Jay. H., 395 Ill. App. 3d 1063, 1071 (2009).
A best-interest determination is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the facts clearly
demonstrate that the court should have reached the opposite result. In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App.
3d at 1072.
¶ 75 In this case, the caseworker, the foster mother, and Amy all testified at the best interest
hearing. The trial judge was able to watch the witnesses as they testified and to make judgments
as to each witness’s credibility. The foster mother testified that she would adopt the girls. Although
Amy asked the trial court not to terminate her parental rights and to instead order that the foster
mother be given guardianship, we agree with the trial court’s decision that the children needed,
and were entitled to, a more permanent solution. The trial court stated that Amy’s love for her
children was evident. The foster mother had agreed to maintain Amy’s relationship with the
children. Although the foster mother would not be obligated to do so after the adoptions were
26 finalized, DCFS caseworker Carr testified to the foster mother’s character and her belief that the
foster mother would continue this arrangement.
¶ 76 In this case, the record clearly reflects that termination of Amy’s parental rights was the
appropriate outcome for E.M. and A.M. By the date of the best interest hearing, the children had
been in foster care for over three years. The children were living together with their foster mother.
The children were excelling in school. Most importantly, the children were safe. We conclude that
the trial court’s decision to terminate Amy’s parental rights was not contrary to the manifest weight
of the evidence. In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d 476, 498-99 (2002).
¶ 77 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 78 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Jefferson County.
¶ 79 Affirmed.