NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2020 IL App (3d) 190696-U
Order filed March 20, 2020 ____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
In re L.M. and K.M., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the 10th Judicial Circuit, Minors, ) Peoria County, Illinois, ) (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Appeal Nos. 3-19-0696 ) 3-19-0697 Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) Circuit Nos. 17-JA-215 v. ) 17-JA-216 ) ANTHONY M., ) Honorable ) David A. Brown, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices McDade and Schmidt concurred in the judgment. ____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The trial court’s finding that father was unfit based on depravity was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 After the trial court adjudicated L.M. (D.O.B. 9/27/2015) and K.M. (D.O.B. 3/14/2013)
(collectively minors) neglected and found Anthony McKinney (father) dispositionally unfit, the
State moved to terminate father’s parental rights. During the termination proceedings, the trial court found father unfit under the statutory ground of depravity. The trial court later terminated
father’s parental rights. On appeal, father challenges the trial court’s finding that father was proven
unfit by clear and convincing evidence.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On August 17, 2017, the State filed neglect petitions alleging that the minors were
neglected pursuant to section 2-3 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 in that their environment was
injurious to their welfare. 705 ILCS 405/2-3 (West 2016). Specifically, the neglect petitions
alleged that father had an extensive criminal history, ongoing substance abuse issues, and was not
cooperating with substance abuse treatment or Lutheran Social Services. On March 5, 2018, the
trial court entered an order adjudicating the minors neglected. On April 9, 2018, the trial court
entered a dispositional order finding father unfit pursuant to the allegations in the petition and
made the minors wards of the court.
¶5 On April 22, 2019, the State filed petitions to terminate father’s parental rights, alleging
father was an unfit parent pursuant to section 1(D)(i) of the Adoption Act on grounds that father
was a depraved parent. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i) (West 2018). The State’s termination petitions alleged
father had been convicted of the following: burglary (Peoria County case No. 17-CF-229), retail
theft (Tazewell County case No. 17-CF-414), retail theft (Tazewell County case No. 17-CF-339),
retail theft (Tazewell County case No. 17-CF-627), theft (Peoria County case No. 10-CF-658),
obstructing/resisting arrest (Tazewell County case No. 10-CM-598), and battery (Tazewell County
case No. 10-CM-599). 1
1 The State’s petitions to terminate father’s parental rights originally read that Tazewell County case Nos. 17-CF-414, 17-CF-339, and 17-CF-627 were thefts, not retail thefts. During the hearing on the State’s petition to terminate, the State amended its termination petitions to show that these convictions were for retail theft, not theft.
2 ¶6 On August 26, 2019, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s petitions to
terminate. At the outset, the State introduced seven certified copies of father’s criminal convictions
as listed above without objection.
¶7 Father testified that he was currently incarcerated in the Sheridan Correctional Center
(Sheridan facility) and had been there for the last eight months. Prior to his incarceration in the
Sheridan facility, father was incarcerated in the Peoria County Jail for four to five months. Father
testified that prior to his incarceration he worked as a certified carpenter in Kentucky and had
completed an apprenticeship. Father estimated that he made over $60,000 per year in Kentucky
and was able to support the minors, including providing them with clothing, food, and shelter.
¶8 Father briefly explained the facts underlying his burglary and retail theft convictions.
Father regretted committing the crimes. Father explained that he was not the type of person to
commit crimes, but drug addiction changed his life. Father previously used heroin, fentanyl, and
occasionally cocaine or crack. Father testified that he did not commit any crimes or use any drugs
in the presence of the minors. Father has attempted to and would like to contact the minors but has
so far been unsuccessful in his attempts. Father had not spoken with the minors for over a year and
stated that he was late to his last visit with the minors, which was wrong and broke his heart.
¶9 For the past eight to nine months, father has received treatment at the Sheridan facility.
Through treatment, father learned his triggers and the tools to combat his triggers. Father learned
that he does not need to get high to get away from his problems. Father is very happy with his
sobriety and feels free. Father has had no disciplinary issues in prison. While incarcerated, father
completed a parenting course called “Inside Out Dads” and took a course called “Young Men’s
Aggression.” Father attends Narcotics Anonymous when it is offered. Father attends counseling
every weekday. Counseling has helped father pinpoint his problems and express himself.
3 ¶ 10 Father testified that he could be released from prison as early as December 2019, but no
later than June 2020. Upon release, father plans to work to be the man and the father he knows he
can be. Father plans to work as a carpenter to support the minors financially. Father has taken
college courses at the Sheridan facility and has almost completed an electrician apprenticeship.
Father expects to get his electrician certification in October or November 2019. Father plans to
continue treatment upon release, look into obtaining a sponsor, and is willing to participate in drug
drops.
¶ 11 On cross-examination, father clarified that he had been convicted of burglary and did not
plead guilty as he testified on direct examination. Father had been incarcerated for a little over a
year and had been using drugs until he went to county jail in July 2018. Beforehand, father had
been an addict for four years. Father has yet to test his sobriety outside of custody. Regarding
counseling, father testified that he participates primarily in group counseling and attends individual
counseling once per week.
¶ 12 Katrina Vroman of Lutheran Social Services testified that she has been father’s social
worker since October 2018, but first met father in April 2019. Father has been cooperative with
Vroman since that time. Vroman received paperwork from father indicating that he had completed
a parenting class and was enrolled in counseling. Vroman was unaware of any negative reports
about father in prison and stated that father was doing all that he could.
¶ 13 After hearing the testimony, reviewing the exhibits, and considering the parties’ arguments,
the trial court found that father’s testimony concerning his rehabilitation was sufficient to
overcome the presumption of depravity.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2020 IL App (3d) 190696-U
Order filed March 20, 2020 ____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
In re L.M. and K.M., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the 10th Judicial Circuit, Minors, ) Peoria County, Illinois, ) (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Appeal Nos. 3-19-0696 ) 3-19-0697 Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) Circuit Nos. 17-JA-215 v. ) 17-JA-216 ) ANTHONY M., ) Honorable ) David A. Brown, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices McDade and Schmidt concurred in the judgment. ____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The trial court’s finding that father was unfit based on depravity was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 After the trial court adjudicated L.M. (D.O.B. 9/27/2015) and K.M. (D.O.B. 3/14/2013)
(collectively minors) neglected and found Anthony McKinney (father) dispositionally unfit, the
State moved to terminate father’s parental rights. During the termination proceedings, the trial court found father unfit under the statutory ground of depravity. The trial court later terminated
father’s parental rights. On appeal, father challenges the trial court’s finding that father was proven
unfit by clear and convincing evidence.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On August 17, 2017, the State filed neglect petitions alleging that the minors were
neglected pursuant to section 2-3 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 in that their environment was
injurious to their welfare. 705 ILCS 405/2-3 (West 2016). Specifically, the neglect petitions
alleged that father had an extensive criminal history, ongoing substance abuse issues, and was not
cooperating with substance abuse treatment or Lutheran Social Services. On March 5, 2018, the
trial court entered an order adjudicating the minors neglected. On April 9, 2018, the trial court
entered a dispositional order finding father unfit pursuant to the allegations in the petition and
made the minors wards of the court.
¶5 On April 22, 2019, the State filed petitions to terminate father’s parental rights, alleging
father was an unfit parent pursuant to section 1(D)(i) of the Adoption Act on grounds that father
was a depraved parent. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i) (West 2018). The State’s termination petitions alleged
father had been convicted of the following: burglary (Peoria County case No. 17-CF-229), retail
theft (Tazewell County case No. 17-CF-414), retail theft (Tazewell County case No. 17-CF-339),
retail theft (Tazewell County case No. 17-CF-627), theft (Peoria County case No. 10-CF-658),
obstructing/resisting arrest (Tazewell County case No. 10-CM-598), and battery (Tazewell County
case No. 10-CM-599). 1
1 The State’s petitions to terminate father’s parental rights originally read that Tazewell County case Nos. 17-CF-414, 17-CF-339, and 17-CF-627 were thefts, not retail thefts. During the hearing on the State’s petition to terminate, the State amended its termination petitions to show that these convictions were for retail theft, not theft.
2 ¶6 On August 26, 2019, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s petitions to
terminate. At the outset, the State introduced seven certified copies of father’s criminal convictions
as listed above without objection.
¶7 Father testified that he was currently incarcerated in the Sheridan Correctional Center
(Sheridan facility) and had been there for the last eight months. Prior to his incarceration in the
Sheridan facility, father was incarcerated in the Peoria County Jail for four to five months. Father
testified that prior to his incarceration he worked as a certified carpenter in Kentucky and had
completed an apprenticeship. Father estimated that he made over $60,000 per year in Kentucky
and was able to support the minors, including providing them with clothing, food, and shelter.
¶8 Father briefly explained the facts underlying his burglary and retail theft convictions.
Father regretted committing the crimes. Father explained that he was not the type of person to
commit crimes, but drug addiction changed his life. Father previously used heroin, fentanyl, and
occasionally cocaine or crack. Father testified that he did not commit any crimes or use any drugs
in the presence of the minors. Father has attempted to and would like to contact the minors but has
so far been unsuccessful in his attempts. Father had not spoken with the minors for over a year and
stated that he was late to his last visit with the minors, which was wrong and broke his heart.
¶9 For the past eight to nine months, father has received treatment at the Sheridan facility.
Through treatment, father learned his triggers and the tools to combat his triggers. Father learned
that he does not need to get high to get away from his problems. Father is very happy with his
sobriety and feels free. Father has had no disciplinary issues in prison. While incarcerated, father
completed a parenting course called “Inside Out Dads” and took a course called “Young Men’s
Aggression.” Father attends Narcotics Anonymous when it is offered. Father attends counseling
every weekday. Counseling has helped father pinpoint his problems and express himself.
3 ¶ 10 Father testified that he could be released from prison as early as December 2019, but no
later than June 2020. Upon release, father plans to work to be the man and the father he knows he
can be. Father plans to work as a carpenter to support the minors financially. Father has taken
college courses at the Sheridan facility and has almost completed an electrician apprenticeship.
Father expects to get his electrician certification in October or November 2019. Father plans to
continue treatment upon release, look into obtaining a sponsor, and is willing to participate in drug
drops.
¶ 11 On cross-examination, father clarified that he had been convicted of burglary and did not
plead guilty as he testified on direct examination. Father had been incarcerated for a little over a
year and had been using drugs until he went to county jail in July 2018. Beforehand, father had
been an addict for four years. Father has yet to test his sobriety outside of custody. Regarding
counseling, father testified that he participates primarily in group counseling and attends individual
counseling once per week.
¶ 12 Katrina Vroman of Lutheran Social Services testified that she has been father’s social
worker since October 2018, but first met father in April 2019. Father has been cooperative with
Vroman since that time. Vroman received paperwork from father indicating that he had completed
a parenting class and was enrolled in counseling. Vroman was unaware of any negative reports
about father in prison and stated that father was doing all that he could.
¶ 13 After hearing the testimony, reviewing the exhibits, and considering the parties’ arguments,
the trial court found that father’s testimony concerning his rehabilitation was sufficient to
overcome the presumption of depravity. However, the trial court noted that father committed many
of the criminal offenses both while on probation and after the minors were born. The court found
that father demonstrated an inability to conform to accepted morality and to abide by the laws of
4 the state while out of incarceration. Therefore, the trial court found that the State had proven father
unfit based on depravity by clear and convincing evidence. Father appeals.
¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 15 On appeal, father urges this court to reverse the trial court’s finding that the State proved
by clear and convincing evidence that father is unfit on depravity grounds pursuant to section
1(D)(i). 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i) (West 2018). Clear and convincing evidence is stated to be greater
than a preponderance but something less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In re D.T., 212 Ill.
2d 347, 362 (2004). The trial court’s determination that clear and convincing evidence of a parent’s
unfitness has been shown for purposes of the termination of parental rights will not be overturned
unless the finding is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re D.D., 196 Ill. 2d 405,
417 (2001); In re D.M., 298 Ill. App. 3d 574, 579 (1998). A finding is against the manifest weight
where, based on the evidence, the opposite result is clearly evident. In re D.D., 196 Ill. 2d at 417.
¶ 16 This court has defined depravity as an “inherent deficiency of moral sense and rectitude.”
In the Interest of A.L., 301 Ill. App. 3d 198, 202 (1998). Section 1(D)(i), entitled “Depravity[,]”
provides that there is a rebuttable presumption that a parent is depraved if the parent has been
criminally convicted of at least three felonies and at least one of the convictions took place within
five years of the filing of the petition or motion seeking termination of parental rights. 750 ILCS
50/1(D)(i) (West 2018). A parent may rebut this presumption by showing that, despite their
convictions, he or she is not depraved. In re A.M., 358 Ill. App. 3d 247 (2005). If the presumption
is adequately rebutted, the burden in the case does not shift. The case merely proceeds as if the
presumption never existed and is determined on the basis of the evidence presented. In re J.V.,
2018 IL App (1st) 171766, ¶ 180; In re J.A., 316 Ill. App. 3d 553, 562-63 (2000). Ultimately,
“[t]he statutory ground of depravity requires the trier of fact to closely scrutinize the character and
5 credibility of the parent.” In re J.A., 316 Ill. App. 3d at 563. The reviewing court will give the trial
court’s determinations on such matters deferential treatment. Id.
¶ 17 Here, the State submitted into evidence seven certified copies of father’s criminal
convictions. Father’s uncontroverted convictions included four felonies in the last five years and
five felonies overall, well over the threshold amount required under section 1(D)(i). Father’s
criminal history spanned from 2010 to 2017. Thus, father exhibited recurring criminal behavior
for a significant duration. As the trial court noted, father committed several felony offenses while
on probation, highlighting father’s inability to conform with society’s laws even while under
supervision. Most importantly, father committed felonies during a substantial portion of both the
minors’ lives.
¶ 18 Despite father’s commendable efforts while incarcerated, the record clearly establishes that
father’s new-found sobriety and outlook have yet to be tested outside of the bounds of confinement
where father has been shown to have a propensity for abusing drugs and breaking the law. Based
on this record, we affirm the trial court’s finding of parental unfitness for purposes of the
termination petitions where the State established depravity by clear and convincing evidence.
¶ 19 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 20 The judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County is affirmed.
¶ 21 Affirmed.