2025 IL App (4th) 241546-U NOTICE FILED This Order was filed under May 7, 2025 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NOS. 4-24-1546, 4-24-1547 cons. Carla Bender not precedent except in the 4th District Appellate limited circumstances allowed IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1).
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
In re H.C. and T.C., Minors ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Carroll County Petitioner-Appellee, ) Nos. 21JA3 v. ) 21JA4 Jodi C., ) Respondent-Appellant). ) Honorable ) John J. Kane, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Knecht and Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.
ORDER ¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court’s termination of respondent mother’s parental rights was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 In August 2023, the State filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of
respondent mother, Jodi C., to her minor twin children, H.C. and T.C. (born in October 2016).
Following hearings on the State’s petitions, the trial court found Jodi to be an unfit parent under
section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2022)) and determined it was in the
minors’ best interests to terminate her parental rights. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 A. Initial Proceedings ¶5 On August 24, 2021, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship,
alleging H.C. and T.C. were neglected minors whose environment was injurious to their welfare
under section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS
405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)). The allegations regarding each child were the same. The State
alleged Jodi, a registered sexual predator, moved with the children to the residence of Brenda G.,
who also resided with her two minor children. According to the petitions, Jodi told Brenda she
was 17 years old. The State alleged that, at some point, Brenda observed Jodi kissing Brenda’s
15-year-old daughter, A.H., and engaging in a romantic relationship with her. A.H. admitted she
was in a sexual relationship with Jodi. A.H. was also observed “screaming and yelling” at H.C.
and T.C. Police eventually arrested Jodi for failing to register as a sex offender and for
knowingly communicating with a minor over the Internet. The trial court thereafter entered a
temporary custody order and found there was an immediate and urgent need to remove H.C. and
T.C. from the home and placed them in the temporary custody of the Illinois Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS).
¶6 On January 26, 2022, Jodi admitted to the allegations of the petition and the facts
contained therein. Jodi also admitted she was 24 years old at the time she represented herself to
be 17 and that she kissed A.H. and posted the content on a social media platform. The trial court
subsequently entered an adjudicatory order finding H.C. and T.C. neglected.
¶7 At the dispositional hearing on February 25, 2022, the DCFS dispositional report
and report from the DCFS contract agency, Believe in the Children (BIC), were admitted as
evidence without objection. No further evidence was presented. The reports indicated Jodi
continued to make “bad life choices” despite “some improvement in her parenting skills.” This
included continued contact with A.H. and A.H.’s family through social media. DCFS reported
-2- Jodi completed her parenting sessions and was working on the next phase of parenting coaching.
Although Jodi started off well, she had “since regressed in her parenting and end[ed] visits
early.” DCFS found Jodi had been seeing H.C. and T.C. other than when supervised, as had been
ordered, and was untruthful about it when questioned. At the time of the dispositional hearing,
DCFS could not “recommend that [Jodi’s] children be return[ed] to her care since she [was]
lacking the resources, understanding, ability, and drive to care for her children.” Jodi also had
not “taken responsibility for her actions that caused the children to come into care and doesn’t
understand why they are in care.”
¶8 BIC reported Jodi regressed in both parenting class performance and visitation.
BIC noted, “Engagement with the children became increasingly tense and strained[,] with [Jodi]
expressing more frustrations and not utilizing the skills she claimed to have grasped.” Visits with
T.C. and H.C. were for one hour once a week, and at each visit, Jodi “lost patience and began
getting [the children] ready to leave earlier and earlier.” Jodi also behaved inappropriately at
times and refused to follow protocol. The children appeared “nervous, show[ing] physical signs
of stress and distress.” Jodi “insist[ed] on playing the games she want[ed] to play in spite of
requests from the children.” She routinely insulted and belittled T.C. and rarely engaged with
H.C. BIC noted, “[W]hile [Jodi] showed up for class, she retained little and implemented none of
the skills and training from classes.”
¶9 The trial court then entered a dispositional order, finding Jodi unfit or unable, for
reasons other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train, or discipline the
minors. The court adjudicated H.C. and T.C. neglected, made them wards of the court, and
placed custody and guardianship with DCFS.
¶ 10 The trial court held a permanency review hearing on August 5, 2022. Again, the
-3- reports submitted by DCFS and BIC were admitted without objection. Jodi had to be repeatedly
reminded to come prepared for her parenting classes. The parenting curriculum and study
material began at a high school level “due to [Jodi’s] claims of working on her GED testing,” but
BIC adjusted the program “to a 7th/8th grade level to better assist Jodi in learning the skills.” In
another attempt to assist Jodi in understanding the concepts of the program, BIC readjusted the
curriculum to “an elementary level.” The impact of Jodi’s visits with the minors was “visibly
evident.” The children became nervous, showed “physical signs of stress and distress,” and
“inappropriately vie[d] for the attention of their caregivers and strangers.” Both children “wet
their pants for days after the visits.” During visits, Jodi loudly discussed T.C.’s “[b]oobies” and
how she wanted to buy T.C. a bra, even though T.C. was five years old. H.C. “lower[ed] himself
to [Jodi’s] expectations” and “revert[ed] to baby talk and pointing.” H.C. also licked his lips until
they chapped while visiting with Jodi.
¶ 11 B. Termination Proceedings
¶ 12 In August 2023, the State filed petitions to terminate Jodi’s parental rights to H.C.
and T.C. In relevant part, the petitions alleged Jodi was an unfit parent within the meaning of
section 1(D) of the Adoption Act because she (1) failed to protect her children from conditions
within their environment injurious to their welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(g) (West 2022)), (2) failed
to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that brought the minors into care (750 ILCS
50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2022)), and (3) failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the
minors within the following nine month period: February 25, 2022, to November 25, 2022 (750
ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022)).
¶ 13 1. Unfitness Hearing
¶ 14 a. Jaclyn Rogers
-4- ¶ 15 Jaclyn Rogers, a placement supervisor for DCFS, testified she oversaw and
approved the recommended service plans after caseworkers completed them. Rogers testified
that during the relevant nine-month period, Jodi held a job at Casey’s for a “few months.” She
was then employed at Snak-King for a short time after that. On the issue of parenting, Jaclyn
testified Jodi was to demonstrate “safe and protective parenting skills that she had learned in her
classes.” But even though Jodi engaged in individualized sessions and classes more specifically
tailored to her needs, there were concerns over Jodi’s ability to retain and demonstrate that
information during visits or in class.
¶ 16 b. Grace Arneson
¶ 17 Grace Arneson, a DCFS caseworker, went over Jodi’s service goals related to
living independently, employment, mental health, and parenting. Although Jodi engaged with
counseling services, she failed to address the issues “pertaining to the children coming into care
or her own trauma.” Jodi also failed to obtain independent housing, and as far as Arneson knew,
Jodi “was never employed by anyone.” Further, Arneson testified Jodi “never was able to
demonstrate what she learned in the parenting classes with her children.” Jodi often pushed “her
own agenda” during visits, and she failed to “demonstrate that she could follow [the children’s]
lead *** and become interested in things they were interested in.”
¶ 18 c. Patti Jennings
¶ 19 Patti Jennings testified she was a founder, board member, and former director of
BIC. She testified Jodi regularly “showed up” and engaged in her parenting courses, despite her
difficulty concentrating and retaining information. When it came to budgeting, Jennings
explained she “developed a program that was at about a third-grade level for basic math,” and
she gave Jodi assignments to complete, but Jodi rarely completed her homework tasks. On at
-5- least one occasion, Jodi indicated she would have her father complete her take-home assignments
because she thought it was “stupid” that she had to do them.
¶ 20 Jennings testified Jodi constantly lied to her, which required her to verify
everything Jodi told her. When determining whether Jodi “was still communicating with [A.H.],”
with whom Jodi was to have no contact, Jennings discovered A.H. “was still on [Jodi’s] phone
plan, and [Jodi] was calling her.” According to Jennings, Jodi “did not think she had to abide by
[the] rules” of her sex-offender probation and believed she “could be alone with kids” and “go
where she wanted to,” even after Jennings went over Jodi’s probation conditions with her in
writing. One day later, Jodi was arrested at a park with the children.
¶ 21 Jennings also observed Jodi’s visits with T.C. and H.C. Instead of effectively
parenting the children, Jodi “played with [them] like a child,” and “the children responded to her
like another child.” Jodi also “favored one child over the other.” When Jennings talked to Jodi
“about the impact of actions and her history on the children, she just denied it.” And even though
it was “proven and discussed” that Jodi exposed the children to “sexualized behaviors” while she
was in a relationship with A.H., Jodi denied it.
¶ 22 Additionally, T.C. and H.C. were “very uncomfortable and verbalized their
uncomfortableness with being physically engaged with [Jodi],” and Jennings had to tell Jodi to
stop inappropriately touching the children during visits multiple times. Jennings also prohibited
Jodi from bringing clothes for the children after she kept her hands in H.C.’s pants for “longer
than [anyone was] comfortable with” while H.C. changed. Jennings further testified Jodi insisted
on having photographs taken during visits. In one photograph, Jodi posed with her hands on the
children, one hand “on one crotch and one on the other.” Eventually, Jodi’s visits with the
children were stopped because “they were so traumatic for the children” and “were causing them
-6- all kinds of problems and emotional disturbances.”
¶ 23 d. Colette Binger
¶ 24 Colette Binger testified she was a licensed clinical professional counselor who
“was asked to counsel the children through a DCFS contract through [BIC].” During one session
with the children, T.C. disclosed “that she had been in the bathroom with Jodi when she was
showering with an adolescent girl who [Jodi] had explained *** was her girlfriend.” T.C. “was
very uncomfortable because they were in the shower together, and she got in the shower with
them.” Binger also observed several of Jodi’s visits with the children, and she noticed Jodi often
played and interacted with T.C. differently than with H.C. There were also “multiple instances”
where Binger “had to make sure that Jodi wouldn’t go in the bathroom with the children.” And
even though Jodi was informed of the rules against taking photos of the children, “she would
sneak pictures in during visits.”
¶ 25 Binger testified the children’s visits with Jodi induced “panic-attack-like
symptoms” to the point the children began to have nightmares “about two to three days ***
before a visit.” T.C. and H.C. “would also, after a visit, wet the bed, wet their pants, have
horrible stomachaches, headaches. They would think that a car was following them that had a
family member in it ***. They would be at McDonald’s and think that they saw [Jodi].”
According to Binger, both children explained to her in “vivid detail” that the visits caused their
extreme emotional distress. Binger testified that since visitation stopped, the children were more
social, calmer, and their “paranoia in watching cars” had diminished.
¶ 26 e. Jodi
¶ 27 Jodi testified on her own behalf. As of the time of the unfitness hearing, Jodi had
not obtained independent housing, and she lived with her grandmother. She believed she would
-7- have enough money to cover rent and expenses for a one-bedroom apartment if she “manage[d]
[her] money right,” but she admitted she had never lived independently. Jodi testified she had
applied for three jobs within the last year, without success. Although currently unemployed, Jodi
received Social Security disability benefits. Jodi’s learning disability caused her to struggle to
understand verbal information, and Jodi stated she also suffered from dyslexia. In Jodi’s opinion,
she “did everything in [her] power to understand everything” in her parenting courses, which
included one-on-one sessions with Jennings. Yet Jodi learned only “half of it.” She claimed no
one attempted to adjust her services to accommodate her disabilities.
¶ 28 Further, Jodi acknowledged she was a registered sex offender. At the time she
was arrested for being in a public park, she understood she was not allowed to be within 500 feet
of a park or school without permission. Jodi denied sexually abusing H.C. and T.C. She also
denied touching them inappropriately during visits. Rather, Jodi testified Binger told her the
visits with the minors were “really good.” According to Jodi, H.C. and T.C. were excited to see
her at every visit. When the children arrived, they “jump[ed] out of the vehicle” and ran up to see
her. When it was time to leave, T.C. would cry because she did not want Jodi to go. Still, Jodi
acknowledged visitation stopped due to the children experiencing trauma and nightmares. And
while Jodi acknowledged being told not to bring clothing for the children, she claimed no one
gave her a reason why.
¶ 29 Ultimately, the trial court found Jodi failed to make reasonable progress toward
the return of T.C. and H.C. to her care during the relevant nine-month period. In making its
unfitness determination, the court observed Jodi never “obtained and maintained independent
housing.” She also failed to be steadily employed. The court further pointed out “that, although
Jodi attended parenting classes, she couldn’t retain what she was taught[,] and she could not
-8- implement what she was taught during visits with the children.” In doing so, the court noted the
individual counseling sessions and other attempts to improve Jodi’s retention and
implementation of the parenting material during visits. Thus, the court found “Jodi’s parenting
skills did not improve at all during her time with [BIC]” and she “did not make reasonable
progress in her ability to apply what she was taught to parenting during visits.”
¶ 30 2. Best Interests Hearing
¶ 31 The matter then proceeded to the best interests hearing. The best interests reports
indicated T.C. and H.C. had been placed with their current foster mother since October 2022.
The foster mother’s home was “clean, safe, [and] well-cared for.” The minors each had their own
bedroom and age-appropriate toys. The children’s foster mother provided them with “nutritious
and ample food along with parental guidance and love.” She ensured the minors’ medical,
mental, and emotional needs were met. The children appeared bonded with their foster mother
and turned to her in times of fear or discomfort. They “consistently expressed a desire to be
adopted by her.” Since their placement in the home, the minors attended school regularly and
were performing well academically. The minors had “several friends at school and look[ed]
forward to attending each day.” They also participated in “several community activities such as
clubs at the library and sports through the park district.”
¶ 32 At the best interests hearing, Arneson testified the minors’ foster mother “care[d]
greatly for their needs as well as their interests, their likes and dislikes, and things that they
would find enjoyable.” T.C. and H.C. appeared well cared for and were thriving in their current
placement. When Arneson spoke with the children, they told her they felt “safe and loved” and
were “very happy” in their placement. The children referred to their foster mother as “mom”;
they did not speak to or ask about Jodi. According to Arneson, the foster mother expressed her
-9- desire to adopt T.C. and H.C.
¶ 33 Ultimately, the trial court found it was in the best interests of T.C. and H.C. to
terminate Jodi’s parental rights.
¶ 34 This appeal followed.
¶ 35 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 36 On appeal, Jodi contends the trial court’s unfitness and best interests findings
were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 37 A. Unfitness Finding
¶ 38 “ ‘The State must prove parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence.’ ”
In re A.L., 409 Ill. App. 3d 492, 500 (2011) (quoting In re Jordan V., 347 Ill. App. 3d 1057, 1067
(2004)). A determination of parental unfitness involves factual findings and credibility
determinations which the trial court is in the best position to make because its “opportunity to
view and evaluate the parties *** is superior.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re M.I.,
2016 IL 120232, ¶ 21. “A trial court’s finding of parental unfitness will not be reversed unless it
is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” In re Ta. T., 2021 IL App (4th) 200658, ¶ 48. “A
trial court’s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite
conclusion is clearly apparent or the decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the
evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re N.B., 2019 IL App (2d) 180797, ¶ 30.
¶ 39 The Adoption Act provides several grounds on which a trial court may find a
parent unfit. “[S]ufficient evidence of one statutory ground *** [is] enough to support a [court’s]
finding that someone [is] an unfit person.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re F.P., 2014
IL App (4th) 140360, ¶ 83. In the present case, the trial court found Jodi was an unfit parent as
defined in section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022)).
- 10 - Section 1(D)(m)(ii) provides, in part, a parent will be considered an “unfit person” if he or she
fails “to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent during any [nine]-
month period following the adjudication of neglected *** or dependent minor.” 750 ILCS
50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022). Reasonable progress exists when the evidence shows “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.” (Emphasis in original.) In re L.L.S., 218 Ill. App. 3d 444, 461
(1991). A parent does not demonstrate reasonable progress toward the goal of reunification with
her children if she does not implement the skills taught to her through her services. See In re
R.L., 352 Ill. App. 3d 985, 999 (2004).
¶ 40 Here, the evidence established Jodi failed to implement the skills taught to her
through her services. Despite being briefly employed at Casey’s and Snak-King, Jodi never
obtained steady employment, and she only applied for three jobs in the last year. She also failed
to obtain suitable independent housing. Despite engaging with counseling services, Jodi failed to
address the issues “pertaining to the children coming into care or her own trauma.” Moreover,
Jodi acknowledged she was a registered sex offender and understood she was not to be within
500 feet of a park or school without permission. Yet Jodi was arrested at a park with her children
present one day after Jennings went over the conditions of her probation with her in writing.
According to Jennings, Jodi “did not think she had to abide by [the] rules” and thought she
“could be alone with kids” and “go where she wanted to.” In fact, Jennings discovered A.H., the
adolescent girl with whom Jodi had been in a relationship, “was still on [Jodi’s] phone plan, and
[Jodi] was calling her,” despite Jodi being ordered not to communicate with her.
¶ 41 Further, the record supports the trial court’s determination Jodi failed to “make
- 11 - reasonable progress in her ability to apply what she was taught to parenting during visits.” As the
court observed, despite the one-on-one sessions and other attempts to improve Jodi’s retention
and implementation of the parenting material, including an individualized curriculum that was at
about a third-grade level, Jodi failed to retain and demonstrate that information during visits or in
class. When Jodi visited the children, she played with them “like a child.” Jodi also “favored one
child over the other,” and Binger noticed Jodi often played and interacted with T.C. differently
than with H.C. Jodi denied exposing the children to “sexualized behaviors,” but T.C. disclosed to
Binger that she had been in the bathroom with Jodi when she was showering with A.H. T.C. then
got into the shower with them. Jennings also saw a photograph of Jodi with her hands on the
children, one hand “on one crotch and one on the other.” And even though Jodi knew she was
not to take photos of the children, she kept sneaking pictures in during visits.
¶ 42 Moreover, the children “verbalized their uncomfortableness with being physically
engaged with [Jodi].” During visits, Jodi had to be told to stop touching the children
inappropriately multiple times, and Binger prevented Jodi from going into the bathroom with
them on numerous occasions. Jennings also prohibited Jodi from bringing clothes for the
children after Jodi kept her hands in H.C.’s pants for “longer than [anyone was] comfortable
with.” Eventually, Jodi’s visits with the children stopped because they induced “panic-attack-like
symptoms” to the point the children began to have nightmares “about two to three days ***
before a visit.” After visits, the children would “wet the bed, wet their pants, have horrible
stomachaches, headaches. They would think that a car was following them that had a family
member in it ***. They would be at McDonald’s and think that they saw [Jodi].” In fact, both
children explained to Binger in “vivid detail” that the visits were causing their extreme emotional
distress.
- 12 - ¶ 43 So, since the evidence confirms Jodi failed to make reasonable progress during
the relevant nine-month period, we cannot say the trial court’s unfitness finding stands against
the manifest weight of the evidence because the opposite finding (i.e., fitness) is not readily
apparent. See N.B., 2019 IL App (2d) 180797, ¶ 30.
¶ 44 B. Best Interests Finding
¶ 45 After a parent is found unfit, “the focus shifts to the child.” In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d
347, 364 (2004). The issue ceases to be “whether parental rights can be terminated” and becomes
“whether, in light of the child’s needs, parental rights should be terminated.” (Emphases
omitted.) D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 364. The trial court must consider the factors set forth in section
1-3(4.05) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2022)). See In re T.A., 359
Ill. App. 3d 953, 959-60 (2005). Those factors include: the child’s physical safety and welfare;
the development of the child’s identity; the child’s familial, cultural, and religious background
and ties; the child’s sense of attachments, including where the child feels loved, attached, and
valued; the child’s sense of security, familiarity, and continuity of affection; the child’s wishes
and long-term goals; the child’s community ties; the child’s need for permanence; and the
uniqueness of every family and each child. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2022). We will not
overturn a court’s best interests finding unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
In re Jay. H., 395 Ill. App. 3d 1063, 1071 (2009).
¶ 46 Here, the evidence shows the best interests factors support the termination of
Jodi’s parental rights. The children’s foster mother was committed to adoption, and both children
“consistently expressed a desire to be adopted by her.” T.C. and H.C. were bonded with their
foster mother and referred to her as “mom.” By the time of the best interests hearing, the children
did not interact with or ask about Jodi. Further, the foster home was clean, safe, and stable.
- 13 - Arneson testified the minors’ foster mother “care[d] greatly for their needs as well as their
interests, their likes and dislikes, and things that they would find enjoyable.” The minors each
had their own bedroom and age-appropriate toys. The children’s foster mother provided them
with “nutritious and ample food along with parental guidance and love.” She ensured the minors’
medical, mental, and emotional needs were met. Since their placement in the home, the minors
attended school regularly and were performing well academically. The minors had “several
friends at school and look[ed] forward to attending each day.” They also participated in “several
community activities such as clubs at the library and sports through the park district.” When
weighed against a legitimate concern for permanency for children of tender years, the trial
court’s finding termination was in the minors’ best interests is not against the manifest weight of
the evidence. See T.A., 359 Ill. App. 3d at 960.
¶ 47 All told, the record shows T.C. and H.C. feel loved, valued, secure, and nurtured
in their current placement and have structure and continuity, and it supports the trial court’s
decision. Thus, we cannot say the court erred in finding it was in the children’s best interests to
¶ 48 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 49 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 50 Affirmed.
- 14 -