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).
2021 IL App (3d) 210185-U
Order filed September 21, 2021 ____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
In re R.A., C.B., & A.S., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Minors, ) Peoria County, Illinois. ) (The People of the State of Illinois, ) ) Appeal Nos. 3-21-0185, 3-21-0186 Petitioner-Appellee, ) and 3-21-0187 ) Circuit Nos. 18-JA-314, 18-JA-315, & v. ) 19-JA-108 ) Betsy A., ) ) Respondent-Appellant). ) The Honorable ) Timothy Cusack, Judge, presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Schmidt and Daugherity concurred in the judgment. ____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: Orders finding respondent unfit to care for the minors and subsequently terminating her parental rights were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 The circuit court found respondent, Betsy A., to be an unfit parent to R.A., C.B. and A.S.
It subsequently terminated her parental rights. On appeal, respondent argues that the court’s finding of unfitness and termination order were against the manifest weight of the evidence. For
the reasons that follow, we affirm the circuit court’s finding of unfitness and its termination
order.
¶3 BACKGROUND
On September 4, 2018, the state filed petitions for adjudication of neglect regarding the
minors R.A. (born January 15, 2011) and C.B. (born January 13, 2018). The petitions alleged
that on August 28, 2018, police officers went to the minors’ home and found: four dogs, two
cats, three rabbits and a ferret; animal feces piled up in the living room and in mop bucket; a
“bad smell” causing difficulty in breathing; and flies, fleas, and cockroaches. The petitions also
alleged that, on August 31, 2018, a caseworker from the Illinois Department of Children and
Family Services (DCFS) visited the home and found it in the same condition, but the main floor
was cleaned. On September 5, 2018, temporary shelter care orders were entered. On January 18,
2019, adjudicatory orders were entered finding the petition proven by a preponderance of the
evidence and that the minors were neglected. On March 8, 2019, the circuit court entered a
dispositional order regarding the care of R.A. and C.B.
¶4 On April 12, 2019, a petition for adjudication of neglect was filed as to A.S. (born April
9, 2019). The petition alleged that respondent was previously found unfit relating to R.A. and
C.B. because of unsanitary conditions of the home; that respondent had not completed services
ordered in the prior cases; that respondent was residing with Crystal Groscalude, who had been
found unfit in a separate juvenile case on November 20, 2018; and that the putative father of A.S.
resided in the unsanitary home at the time of respondent’s previous unfitness finding. On April
15, 2019, a temporary shelter care order for A.S. was entered. On June 21, 2019, the court
2 entered an adjudication order, finding A.S. to be neglected, and entered a dispositional order
regarding the care of A.S.
¶5 In both the March 8 and June 21 dispositional orders, the circuit court ordered respondent
to: (1) execute all authorizations for release of information; (2) cooperate fully and completely
with DCFS; (3) participate and successfully complete counseling; (4) participate in and
successfully complete a parenting course or parenting classes; (5) obtain and maintain stable
housing conducive to the safe and healthy rearing of the minors; (6) provide to the caseworker
any change of address, phone number, or members of household within three days; (7) provide to
caseworker information as to any person with whom DCFS has reason to believe a relationship
exists or had developed which would affect the children; and, (8) visit the minors as scheduled.
On September 17, 2020, petitions for termination of parental rights were filed. The petitions
alleged respondent was unfit pursuant to 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2020), in that she failed
to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minors during the nine-month period of
October 1, 2019, to July 1, 2020.
¶6 The adjudication hearing on the petitions for termination of parental rights began on
January 28, 2021.The State called Amy Duffield who testified she was a child welfare advanced
specialist for DCFS and was the caseworker for the minors in these cases. Duffield stated she
had been the caseworker during the entirety of the case which began in September of 2018. The
reasons for protective custody were due to the environment of the home being hazardous for the
children’s welfare. Duffield testified that respondent had completed a parenting class, a
psychological evaluation, and attended counseling with some regularity between October 1,
2019, and July 1, 2020. One service offered to respondent was “Partnering with Parents,” which
3 was a support group for parents to learn various skills such as budgeting and time management.
The program was voluntary, and she attended when she wanted to do so. Respondent only
attended a handful of sessions and then informed Duffield she no longer wanted to attend
because she did not have transportation. Duffield testified that DCFS offered bus passes
to respondent, but respondent refused them.
¶7 Duffield testified that, beginning in November of 2019, the agency began doing
unannounced visits because they wanted to ensure respondent could maintain the home
throughout the week and not just clean right before someone was coming over. On November 7,
2019, Duffield visited the home and knocked on the door for a couple of minutes, and no one
answered. On November 8, 2019, Duffield again visited, but no one answered. However, on that
date, Duffield observed a rug hanging on the railing and there was dried animal feces on the rug.
Between November 8, 2019, and April 13, 2020, Duffield attempted to visit respondent’s home
monthly, but she was not allowed inside. In February of 2020, Duffield went to the home, but
respondent stepped outside and spoke to Duffield on the porch. Respondent told Duffield that
they were doing work inside the home, and it was a mess.
¶8 Duffield testified that there were two child and family team meetings between October 1,
2019, and July 1, 2020. At a November 2019 meeting, respondent was advised that the condition
of the home remained unsuitable for the children to return. She was also advised to correct the
conditions or face termination. Duffield testified that the source of the problem was the animals,
so they tried to help the family come up with alternative places for the animals to live.
Respondent indicated that the majority of the animals belonged to another adult female who
lived in the home. It was explained to respondent and the father that they could move out of the
4 home so that respondent would only have one of the animals. Respondent indicated that if they
got rid of their animals, the animals would die.
¶9 Respondent had admitted to Duffield that they were home when she visited but was “not
sure why they [did not] hear [her] knocking whenever I come to the home.” Respondent did
allow Duffield to enter the home in June of 2020. Duffield observed that a door was on its side,
bungee corded to the wall so animals could not get into the living room. Duffield saw multiple
spots in the living room that appeared crystalized on the floor and had dried, indicating that it
was dry urine. There was also a pile of feces in the left-hand corner by their cat box. The kitchen
was overflowing with trash. Respondent indicated the father of A.S., Tevin S., had not taken it
out. The kitchen had dirty dishes filling the sink. There was an extra refrigerator in the home that
Duffield was told was broken. Duffield testified that at the permanency review hearing on July 1,
2020, respondent had acknowledged Duffield was in the home in June and that the home still
needed work.
¶ 10 Duffield testified that between October 1, 2019, and July 1, 2020, there was never a time
she felt comfortable returning the minors to respondent. Duffield explained that was because the
home environment was still injurious to the welfare of the children. Two of the minors were
toddlers, and toddlers put anything in their mouth. If the family continued to have feces and
animal urine throughout the home, there was the risk the children would eat the feces or put toys
in their mouths that had feces or urine on them.
¶ 11 On cross-examination, Duffield testified that visits between October 2019 and July 2020
were at the office. When the goal was return home, respondent was receiving visits every week
for two hours. After the goal was changed to substitute care pending termination, visits were
reduced to one a month. Respondent attended most of the visits. Duffield testified she had
5 concerns because during a couple visits respondent asked the ten-year-old R.A. to change the
diapers of the two younger children. Respondent also had trouble watching all three children
because the two youngest required a lot of attention. Duffield was concerned about the lack of
supervision that C.B. received. There was concern that, at home with respondent, he would not
be properly supervised and could put himself in danger. Respondent was loving towards A.S.
and R.A. most of the time. She would mostly hold A.S. because he was little. Duffield testified
R.A. had a strong bond with respondent because she spent the most time with respondent prior to
DCFS involvement.
¶ 12 Duffield testified that respondent had homemaker services through Help at Home. A
homemaker would come at least once a week into the home and help develop a budget and a
schedule for cleaning. Duffield could not recall when, but the homemaker services were
discontinued because it was determined the parents were not making progress and were not
following their suggestions.
¶ 13 The State asked the circuit court to take judicial notice of Tevin S.’s stipulation to the
petition to terminate filed on October 7, 2019, which was done without objection. The State then
sought to proffer evidence about two of the fathers, Tevin S. and Daniel B. There being no
objection, the State proffered, in relevant part, that Duffield would testify that respondent and
Tevin S. lived together between October 1, 2019, and July 1, 2020. Between those dates,
Duffield was not permitted entry into the house for several months. When Duffield was allowed
inside, the condition of the house was unsanitary.
¶ 14 Respondent testified she completed a parenting class during the relevant period. She
stated the sessions did not provide much regarding house cleaning, but did teach about
“homemade chemicals, cleaning chemicals, and stuff like that.” When asked if the classes
6 touched on cleanliness of the home, she indicated it did not. Respondent testified she was seeing
a counselor with the Antioch Group, but she was not “getting anywhere with her.” She was not
given any goals in counseling and only discussed how she was feeling and why the children were
taken. Respondent testified she had five or six certificates from the Partnering with Parents
group. None of the speakers at the Partnering with Parents group spoke about house cleaning.
¶ 15 Respondent testified that, during the relevant period, she was doing two visits per month
at the agency. She attended as many visits as she could. A “few months ago” she had her
gallbladder removed and she could not make visits. She would get to the visits by walking or
riding her bike. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, respondent had video calls with the
children. She denied she had trouble managing the little children and stated she paid attention
equally to all three children. During visits, she would chase the children around the room playing
“catch them if I could.” The middle child would throw toys and pillows at respondent, and she
would toss them back
¶ 16 Respondent testified that the caseworker came to the house one time right before the
pandemic started and one time the month prior to the hearing. She disagreed with the caseworker
regarding the condition of the home. She stated they were keeping the house clean. She agreed
there were dishes in the sink and a few trash bags in the kitchen, but they were “getting chores
done.” She also agreed there were feces and urine in a “couple spots,” but that they cleaned them
up. Respondent testified there were three dogs and a cat in the house during the relevant period.
One of the animals was hers and the other three belonged to her sister. Respondent stated they
sent the animals to another relative, but they were returned after two weeks. Respondent stated
the animals went outside to use the bathroom, they only had accidents at night, and they cleaned
them up in the morning.
7 ¶ 17 Respondent testified there were “only a few” times when she refused to let the
caseworker into the home, saying that was when they were tearing up the old carpeting and
laying new flooring in the living room. Respondent’s house had three bedrooms upstairs, and
they could make a bedroom in the basement. The house was fully furnished. If the children were
to return to her, there would be one room for the boys and one for the daughter.
¶ 18 On cross-examination by the State, respondent testified that the case came into care
because her house was a “mess.” On cross-examination by the guardian ad litem, respondent
testified that “mess” meant there was feces on the floor, trash in places it should not be, and dirty
dishes. Respondent stated that, right after the accusation, they worked from “night to dawn”
cleaning. Respondent acknowledged that there were other times the house had the same
conditions later in the case, but stated they were “only a couple.”
¶ 19 In rebuttal, the State called Britta Jost from CASA. At the November 2019 family team
meeting, it was suggested to give the parents more opportunity to show the home was ready.
CASA indicated it was willing to do an unannounced visit within the course of the next month.
Jost testified she went to the home, knocked on the door, and was greeted by Tevin S. She told
him it was the unannounced visit per the family team meeting. Tevin S. asked if she could come
back another time and told Jost they were refinishing the floor of the living room, there were a
lot of fumes, and he did not want her to enter at that time.
¶ 20 The State recalled Duffield who testified that respondent told her the family removed the
carpet, which was heavily soiled with urine and feces marks. Duffield stated they were told
multiple times that just removing the carpet was not enough to correct the conditions and that
they needed to stop the animals from urinating and defecating throughout the house. Duffield
stated she observed crystalized dry urine on the new flooring they had put down. Although
8 removing the carpet resolved some of the odor issues, there was still the issue of the animal feces
throughout the home even on the new flooring.
¶ 21 The State argued respondent’s psychological evaluation showed she had no issues
preventing her from addressing the conditions of the home, yet she failed to do so. Respondent’s
counsel argued that respondent took parenting classes, did her psychological evaluation, engaged
in individual counseling, and engaged in the volunteer service of Partnering with Parents. She let
the agencies into her home on at least two occasions. Counsel asserted that none of the services
she completed addressed the problem of a filthy house. Counsel argued the State had not met its
burden. The guardian ad litem argued that the progress sought was correcting the conditions that
brought the children into care. The guardian ad litem asserted the evidence presented
demonstrated services were provided or offered that would have served them well in correcting
the conditions here, but they did not correct them. This case involves a health hazard, a safety
hazard, a danger, and an injurious environment to the children, and the conditions were not
corrected.
¶ 22 Following argument, the circuit court found the State had met its burden of proving
unfitness, stating that it was a “dirty home case” that started in September of 2018; and, during
the relevant period, that condition did not change significantly. The court noted, “when you
choose your pets over your children, as looks—as has been done in this case, this is the result.”
The court stated it did not see any progress during the relevant period.
¶ 23 On January 17, 2021, DCFS filed a best interest report for each of the minors. The reports
indicated that the minors resided in the same foster home. R.A. had been in the home since
February 6, 2020. C.B. and A.S. had been placed in the home on May 8, 2019, when C.B. was
about one year old and A.S. about one month old. The foster parents signed the permanency
9 commitment forms and were willing and able to adopt the children. The minors’ basic needs of
food, shelter, clothing, and health were met by the foster parents. The foster parents had been
together for 28 years and married for 24 years. The foster home was in good condition with no
visible safety hazards or concerns and had adequate space for the family size. R.A. had her own
room and C.B. and A.S. shared a room. The minors had adequate clothing to meet their needs,
and they were always well groomed and dressed. The foster parents had an abundance of toys
and learning materials throughout the house for each child’s developmental age. The minors had
regular “well child” exams and were up to date on immunizations. The foster parents were
diligent in ensuring the minors’ medical exams were current.
¶ 24 Regarding R.A., the reports indicated that she is in an individualized education program
at school and has struggled with math and reading. The foster parents take her to Peoria at least
twice a month for sensory therapy appointments and have obtained weekly tutoring services to
help with her learning deficits. C.B., according to the reports, was tongue tied when he entered
the foster home, but his condition was corrected shortly thereafter. He also required feeding,
speech, and physical therapy, which the foster parents provided and ensured he attended. The
reports also indicated that he had made progress that would be negatively affected if his therapy
is discontinued. A.S. had some notable developmental delays in speech and motor skills. The
foster parents provided speech and occupational therapy for these delays through Early
Intervention Services.
¶ 25 The reports noted that respondent struggled to acknowledge that the condition of the
home was injurious for her as well as for the minors. She had a limited support system. All three
adults in the house had some developmental delays, which qualified them to receive Social
Security Disability. Respondent visited the minors regularly, with only a few missed or canceled
10 visits. During the visits, respondent gave most of her attention to A.S. or R.A., leaving C.B.
unattended. She failed to monitor C.B. and A.S.’s food intake, often rolling her eyes, making
condescending remarks or ignoring the visitation specialist’s reminders to do so. During many
visits, respondent would ask R.A. to clean up the room rather than helping her clear away the
mess all three children had made. During some visits, she would ask R.A. to change her brothers’
diapers instead of changing them herself. R.A. reported she had to take care of C.B. when he was
a baby because respondent was always sleeping. Respondent showed poor attunement to A.S.’s
developmental needs. She dismissed a recommendation to lay A.S. on his belly to help
strengthen his development.
¶ 26 The reports indicated that R.A. is attached to her foster mother and has sought her out
when she was upset or had other needs. As a stay-at-home parent, the foster mother provides
most of the nurturing in the home. She helps R.A. with homework and takes her to all of her
medical appointments. C.B. is also very attached to the foster mother., seeking her out for his
needs. C.B. had been in the home since he was at least 12 months old and, therefore, was the
child most bonded to her. The reports also indicated that the minors are attached to the foster
father as well. The foster father was observed to be loving and affectionate towards C.B. and
A.S. The foster father is a pastor in the community in which the family lives. The family is very
involved in their church and its activities. The foster father’s employment is flexible, allowing
him to help with the day-to-day care of the children when necessary. The foster parents are
active in helping members of their church and local community. The reports recommended that it
was in the best interests of the minors to terminate respondent’s parental rights.
¶ 27 On April 9, 2021, the circuit court held a best interest hearing. Duffield testified that the
current placement met the minors’ basic needs of food, shelter, clothing, and health. She believed
11 R.A. had a strong bond with respondent, however, the relationship of C.B. and A.S. with
respondent was “more of a visiting resource.” Monthly visitation with respondent was a time in
which R.A. sought attention from respondent but C.B. and A.S. “generally just play.” The bond
between all of the minors and the foster parents was strong and they were willing to adopt the
minors. She noted that the best interest report filed in February 2021 was consistent with her
observations. There were no updates since the report. Duffield also stated that no caseworker had
visited respondent’s house since December 2020 because the petition to terminate parental rights
was proven in January. When the circuit court asked her if there was a “critical reason” causing
her not to visit the house, Duffield stated: “I was made aware after the January court hearing, at
the TPR petition hearing, that a threat was made to either harm me or kill me by the parents, so
we filed a police report.”
¶ 28 Respondent testified that she cleaned the house every day with Tevin S.’s help. She still
had three dogs and one cat, “taking them out” and “clean[ing] up any messes.” She stated that
she had “gotten all the smells out” and visitors complimented the home’s odor. Respondent
stated she had only missed two or three visits. Her last visit was in February 2021 at the DCFS
office. She felt that she had a bond with her children. Her daughter wanted to be around her, and
her sons never wanted to leave her side. The children called her “mommy.” Respondent asserted
she completed the tasks asked of her. She did not work outside of the home. She supported
herself with social security insurance. She knew how to access public resources for food stamps.
Respondent denied ever threatening a DCFS caseworker.
¶ 29 The State then argued that it was in the best interests of the minors to terminate the
parents’ parental rights as the relevant factors favored termination. It noted that respondent had
cleaned up her residence, but it had been three years and she was unable to keep a clean
12 household environment. Respondent’s counsel argued that, as of February 2021, respondent’s
house was in extremely good shape. Respondent’s counsel asserted that losing children due to a
dirty house when respondent had otherwise done services was “probably not” in the best interests
of the children. The guardian ad litem argued there was a distinction between friendly visits and
parenting. She stated that, throughout the case, the parents had been unable to consistently
address the reasons for her children’s removal. She found that, at the time of the termination, the
condition of the house was deplorable and far from the condition needed for the minors’ return.
She did not believe the respondent had the consistent ability to manage the home in a way that
was safe for the children. The guardian ad litem argued the best interest factors weighed in favor
of termination.
¶ 30 The circuit court ruled that termination was in the best interest of the minors. First, the
court noted the conditions causing removal had not been resolved because the animals were still
present in the household. In relevant part, it stated:
“I don’t think the ultimate problem, the reason why this case came into care, has
been taken care of. I think you’ve done a good job of cleaning this place up, but
it’s almost like cleaning the house up before the parents come home. You got it
all done because you know somebody was coming over. And it looks okay, but
the root of the problem has not been taken care of, I don’t believe.”
The court also noted that the foster parents were willing to adopt the children. (R.80) It found
that the statutory factors favored the adoption of the children: (1) the physical safety and welfare
favored the current placement; (2) the placement had lasted for over 2 years; (3) the minors
continue to maintain familial, cultural, and religious ties; and (4) the minors have developed a
13 sense of attachment, security, familiarity, and continuity. The court also found that adoption was
the least disruptive alternative.
¶ 31 The circuit court entered its order on April 15, 2021. Respondent now appeals this order.
¶ 32 ANALYSIS
¶ 33 Parental rights may be involuntarily terminated where (1) the State proves, by clear and
convincing evidence, that a parent is unfit pursuant to grounds set forth in Section 1(D) of the
Adoption Act, and (2) the circuit court finds that termination is in the child’s best interests. 750
ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2019); In re Donald A.G., 221 Ill.2d 234, 244 (2006). The State is not
required to prove every ground it has alleged for finding a parent unfit. In re K.I., 2016 IL App
(3d) 160010, ¶ 37 (citing In re Gwynne P., 215 Ill.2d 340, 349 (2005)). “A parent’s rights may
be terminated if even a single alleged ground for unfitness is supported by clear and convincing
evidence.” Id.
¶ 34 Pursuant to the Adoption Act, a parent is unfit if she failed “to make reasonable progress
toward the return of the child to the parent during any [nine]-month period following the
adjudication of neglected or abused minor.” 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2019). Reasonable
progress under section 1(D)(m)(ii) requires “demonstrable movement toward the goal of
reunification.” In re C.N., 196 Ill.2d 181, 211 (2001). On review, the circuit court’s fitness
determination will not be disturbed unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re
K.I., 2016 IL App (3d) 160010, ¶ 38 (citing In re Gwynne P., 215 Ill.2d at 354). A court’s
decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion is clearly
apparent. Id.
¶ 35 The manifest weight of the evidence shows that respondent failed to make reasonable
progress toward sustained correction of the unsanitary and unsafe condition that constituted the
14 reason for the children’s removal from her care. During the evaluation period, Duffield observed
(1) multiple, crystalized spots on the living room floor; (2) a pile of feces in the left-hand corner;
and (3) overflowing trash in the kitchen. Duffield testified that she believed the spots were dry
urine. She also observed excess dishes in the kitchen sink and an extra refrigerator that she
believed was broken. Duffield and the guardian ad litem both testified to a belief that, although
the house was better than it had been when the children were removed, they doubted that it was
consistently clean. Similarly, the trial court compared the situation to cleaning up for company.
These conclusions were created and fostered by the actions of respondent herself. The evidence
showed that respondent persistently denied access to anyone tasked with verifying her progress
in keeping the house in a clean and healthy condition for the minors’ return. In addition to her
failure to make the needed changes, she neither mitigated the presence of her animals in the
home nor found them alternate homes so the minors could return. She denies that the parenting
classes taught her how to address the unsanitary conditions of the house or to understand their
health implications for the minors. However, respondent’s lack of cooperation blocked her from
the help she needed to secure the return of the minors by achieving and demonstrating the
relevant fitness or reasonable progress toward it. The finding of unfitness is supported by the
manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 36 On a petition for termination of parental rights, once a finding of unfitness has been
made, all considerations must yield to the best interest of the child. In re O.S., 364 Ill. App. 3d
628, 633 (3rd Dist. 2006). At this stage of the proceedings, the State must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest. In
re D.T., 212 Ill.2d 347 (2004). The trial court’s decision requires consideration of statutory
factors, including, inter alia: (1) the physical safety and welfare of the child, including food,
15 shelter, clothing, and health; (2) the development of the child’s identity; (3) the child’s
background and ties, including familial, cultural, and religious; (4) the child’s sense of
attachments; (5) the child’s wishes and long-term goals; (6) the child’s community ties, including
church, school, and friends; (7) the child’s need for permanence; (8) the uniqueness of every
family and child; (9) the risks attendant to entering and being in substitute care; and (10) the
preference of the persons available to care for the child. 705 ILCS 405/1–3(4.05) (West 2019).
The trial court’s task requires the court to balance these factors, weighing them at the first
instance, and places the court “in a better position to see the witnesses and judge their
credibility.” In re C.P., 2019 IL App (4th) 190420, ¶ 71 (internal citations and quotations marks
omitted). Thus, on review, we accord the trial court’s determination in a termination proceeding
great deference and will not reverse it unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
In re O.S., 364 Ill. App. 3d at 633.
¶ 37 The relevant factors in this case show that the trial court’s termination order was not
against the manifest weight of the evidence. First, the current placement meets the minors’
physical safety and welfare needs. The best interest reports indicated the foster home was in
good condition with no visible safety hazards or concerns and had adequate space for the family
size. R.A. had her own room and C.B. and A.S. shared a room. The minors had adequate
clothing to meet their needs, and they were always well groomed and well dressed. The foster
parents had an abundance of toys and learning materials throughout the house for each child’s
developmental age. The minors had regular “well child” exams and were up to date on
immunizations. The foster parents were diligent in ensuring the minors’ medical exams were
current.
16 ¶ 38 Second, the minors’ educational and development needs favor permanent placement in
the foster home. The reports indicated that each of the minors had some learning disability that
required individualized therapy treatment: (1) R.A. had learning deficits and struggled with math
and reading; (2) C.B was tongue tied when he entered the foster home; and (3) A.S. had some
notable developmental delays in speech and motor skills. The foster parents have provided
treatment opportunities which yielded significant progress. The report indicated that respondent
and the other two adults with whom she resided also had some developmental delays. The foster
parents also offer personal stability in that they had been together for 28 years and married for 24
years. As a stay-at-home parent, the foster mother provides most of the nurturing in the home.
However, the foster father’s employment is flexible allowing him to help with the day-to-day
care of the children when necessary. In contrast, respondent consistently failed to follow basic
requirements relevant to the minors’ physical and developmental needs. During supervised visits,
she failed to monitor C.B. and A.S.’s food intake, often rolling her eyes, making condescending
remarks or ignoring the visitation specialist’s reminders to do so.
¶ 39 Finally, the minors have bonded with the foster parents who are well suited to oversee
and encourage the development of their identity. The reports indicated that R.A. is attached to
her foster mother and has sought her out when she was upset or had other needs. As the primary
nurturer, she also helps R.A. with homework and takes her to all her medical appointments. C.B.
is also very attached to the foster mother., seeking her out for his needs. C.B. had been in the
home since he was 12 months old and A.S. has literally known no other home. All of the minors
are positively bonded with one or both of foster parents. Our review of the record does not
disclose any risks to the minors as a result of adoption into this family. Again, the decision to
terminate respondent’s parental rights is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.
17 ¶ 40 CONCLUSION
¶ 41 The judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County is affirmed.
¶ 42 Affirmed