2023 IL App (5th) 230319-U NOTICE NOTICE Decision filed 09/01/23. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-23-0319 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for not precedent except in the
Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE limited circumstances allowed the same. under Rule 23(e)(1). APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
In re S.G., a Minor ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Jackson County. ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 20-JA-21 ) Bonnie B., ) Honorable ) Ella L. Y. Travelstead, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE McHANEY delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Boie and Justice Vaughan concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Where the trial court’s orders finding that Bonnie B. was an unfit parent, and that the best interest of the minor child warranted termination of her parental rights, were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, we affirm the orders.
¶2 Bonnie B. (Bonnie) is the mother of S.G., a female child. The Department of Children and
Family Services (DCFS) had an intact family case open in this case. Bonnie and S.G. lived in
public housing. Bonnie repeatedly allowed individuals to move in and out of this apartment, which
was in a chronic unsanitary condition. After someone reported that Bonnie had been smoking
methamphetamine, DCFS had her tested, and she tested positive for methamphetamine. S.G. was
then removed from Bonnie’s home and placed in protective custody.
1 ¶3 Due to Bonnie’s failure to make reasonable progress towards the return of S.G. to her care,
the State filed its motion to terminate her parental rights. After the trial court found that Bonnie
was an unfit parent, the court concluded that it was in S.G.’s best interest to terminate Bonnie’s
parental rights. Bonnie appeals from these orders.
¶4 I. BACKGROUND
¶5 S.G. was born on March 25, 2016. Her mother is Bonnie and her father is Kent G. (Kent). 1
DCFS became involved in this case in early 2019. An intact family case was instigated and DCFS
implemented a safety plan for Bonnie to address the issues that were threatening S.G. In the months
before DCFS took S.G. into protective custody, DCFS was sent to Bonnie’s apartment several
times to respond to concerns about S.G.’s safety. On June 22, 2020, DCFS was again called to
Bonnie’s apartment, which continued to be cluttered with food, dirty dishes, garbage, clothing,
and other debris “rendering the residence unsafe for the minor child.” DCFS removed S.G. from
Bonnie’s home on that date. On June 23, 2020, DCFS filed its petition asking the court to
adjudicate S.G. as a neglected minor pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of
1987 (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)) and to place her in shelter care.
¶6 On June 24, 2020, the trial court held the shelter care hearing and found that there was
probable cause to believe that S.G. was a neglected minor and there was an immediate and urgent
necessity supporting her removal from Bonnie’s home. Temporary custody of S.G. was placed
with DCFS.
¶7 The trial court held the adjudicatory hearing on October 7, 2020. Bonnie stipulated that the
evidence would be substantially similar to the evidence at the shelter care hearing. The court
1 On April 25, 2023, Kent formally surrendered his parental rights to S.G. and is not a party to this appeal.
2 entered its adjudicatory order finding that S.G. was a neglected minor and that it was in her best
interest to remain in the custody of DCFS.
¶8 On October 30, 2020, DCFS filed its dispositional report. In addition to the reports that
Bonnie smoked methamphetamine around S.G. and allowed people to move into her apartment,
which was in an unsanitary condition, there were also reports that four-year-old S.G. had been
seen wandering the neighborhood by herself. DCFS determined that Bonnie’s service needs were
to obtain and maintain housing, undergo parental training, obtain a substance abuse assessment
and submit to random drug tests, obtain a domestic violence assessment, obtain a mental health
assessment, obtain a psychological assessment, and engage in visitation with S.G.
¶9 Bonnie had begun parenting instruction in her home with Project 12-Ways, but the
instructor reported on September 17, 2020, that Bonnie could not keep the apartment clean. Project
12-Ways indicated that the focus would shift from the entire apartment to just the living room and
kitchen, that they would create a checklist for Bonnie, and planned to teach Bonnie structure and
cleaning skills.
¶ 10 Bonnie was proactive with the mandated random drug tests and had tested negative 15
times since July 15, 2020. Because she had consistently tested negative, DCFS did not require her
to complete a substance abuse evaluation. Bonnie also indicated that she would contact The
Women’s Center to make an appointment for domestic violence counseling. Bonnie planned to
use Centerstone for her mental health assessment.
¶ 11 Bonnie had supervised visitation with S.G. two times weekly for a total of four hours. S.G.
remained in the foster home where she was initially placed in June 2020. DCFS reported that she
was adjusting well in this placement. On November 4, 2020, the trial court held a dispositional
3 hearing, at the conclusion of which the court entered its order finding that S.G. was a neglected
minor, and guardianship and custody were placed with DCFS.
¶ 12 DCFS filed a permanency report on April 5, 2021, providing the substantive background
for its involvement with Bonnie, who was reported to have developmental delays and a social
security disability. Bonnie had Adult Protective Services involved in her own care. In 2018, Bonnie
was in a shelter because of domestic abuse by S.G.’s biological father, Kent. In the shelter, Bonnie
met a woman named Crystal. Thereafter, in June 2018, Crystal and her boyfriend, David, began
living with Bonnie and S.G. Adult Protective Services got involved on Bonnie’s behalf because
Crystal and David were financially exploiting her. Crystal and David were suspected substance
abusers. In January 2019, Bonnie was physically assaulted by a third party in her apartment.
Agency advocates working with Bonnie called a team meeting to attempt to extract her from this
home. Bonnie refused to go into a shelter again because she believed that Kent was going to
provide her with a trailer in which she and S.G. could live. No trailer was provided so Bonnie
advised that she was going to go to a hotel and stay with a sex offender named Robert. Whether
she went to this hotel was not indicated in the report. The agency advocates reported that there was
no familial support for Bonnie.
¶ 13 DCFS reported that though Bonnie remained active in parenting education with Project 12-
Ways, in its mid-March 2021 report, the agency stated its intent to close Bonnie out from service
because of her ongoing difficulties to retain information. Project 12-Ways reported that the home
had major environmental issues and was constantly unclean. Overall, Bonnie was stagnant in
progressing in the program. Bonnie informed DCFS that she had contacted the approved agency
to schedule individual psychotherapy. DCFS was waiting for written approval to schedule Bonnie
for a psychological exam. Bonnie had tested negative on all weekly drug tests. Bonnie currently
4 lived in public housing, but had received an eviction notice due to the home’s condition—animal
feces, moldy food in dishes, trash and debris in the living room and kitchen, and fruit flies and
roaches within the home. Bonnie was consistent with her visits with S.G. However, ADDUS
HOMECARE (ADDUS), the entity supervising the visits, raised concerns about Bonnie’s
relationship with someone named Johnny with whom she had video calls during the supervised
visits. Bonnie asked S.G. to refer to Johnny as “New Daddy.” During one video call, Johnny was
directing Bonnie to take $500 from her bank account or he would leave her for a different woman
who would give him the money.
¶ 14 Overall, DCFS reported its concerns that Bonnie struggled with the ability to properly and
safely parent S.G. Bonnie received assistance from Adult Protective Services and had a payee
through Shawnee Alliance who managed Bonnie’s bills. DCFS asked the trial court to remove the
weekly drug tests order and to allow DCFS to schedule monthly random drug tests.
¶ 15 The court entered its order on April 29, 2021, maintaining the permanency goal to return
S.G. home within 12 months. Custody and guardianship of S.G. was ordered to remain with DCFS.
The court modified the drug testing requirements to allow DCFS the discretion for scheduling.
¶ 16 On August 27, 2021, Dr. Nikki Hernandez, a psychologist, filed her court-ordered report.
Bonnie was 44 years old when she was tested and evaluated. State agencies were involved with
Bonnie and her mother when Bonnie was a child. Bonnie’s mother had mental health issues. She
lived with her mother in and out of shelters until she turned 18. Bonnie reported a history of being
sexually molested by her biological father. Both of Bonnie’s parents were deceased, and although
she did have siblings, she did not know their names or whereabouts. Bonnie reported that she had
never been married and her only significant relationship was with S.G.’s father, Kent, which lasted
from 2015 to 2018. Bonnie claimed that Kent was physically and emotionally abusive. Bonnie has
5 never been arrested. Although Bonnie tested positive for methamphetamine one time, she was
unable to explain that result.
¶ 17 Overall, Bonnie’s cognitive and academic functioning was extremely low. Her adaptive
functioning was also extremely low, including the tests for “use of community, home and school
functioning, self-care, and health and safety.” Testing established that Bonnie met the criteria for
a diagnosis of mild intellectual disability and that she “evidenced significant deficits with relation
to adaptive functioning, particularly in the areas of including conceptual and practical
functioning.” The psychologist indicated that these deficits left Bonnie vulnerable for problems
including “understanding rules/societal norms, the ability to navigate the tasks of daily living, and
appropriately participating in family, school, and community activities.” Noting that these
functional impairments are lifelong, the report indicated that Bonnie’s deficits require support and
“make independent parenting unlikely and unsafe.” Moreover, these intellectual deficits
“significantly impede [Bonnie’s] *** ability to *** benefit from parenting instruction.”
¶ 18 On September 8, 2021, DCFS filed its next permanency report. As of that date, Bonnie had
been closed out of parenting education with Project 12-Ways because she could not retain
information. DCFS had received no documentation to establish that Bonnie was engaged in
individual psychotherapy. Bonnie’s home continued to be cluttered and unclean. Bonnie
maintained regular visitation with S.G. DCFS expressed its ongoing concerns that Bonnie lacked
the ability to identify “safe” adults to be around S.G. and herself. The trial court was asked to
continue custody and guardianship with DCFS. The trial court entered its permanency order on
September 20, 2021, later amended on September 22, 2021, finding that the goal remained to return
S.G. home within 12 months. However, the court noted that Bonnie was making little progress and
6 that there were concerns about her ability to provide S.G. with a safe home. The court continued
custody and guardianship of S.G. with DCFS.
¶ 19 DCFS filed a permanency report on December 13, 2021. Bonnie completed her
psychotherapy assessment through Centerstone with no recommendations for treatment. Bonnie
recently applied for housing at a different site in Carbondale. Bonnie continued to exercise her
visitation with S.G. Following the hearing, on December 16, 2021, the trial court maintained the
same goal of returning S.G. home within 12 months and maintaining custody and guardianship
¶ 20 DCFS filed its next permanency report on May 12, 2022. Since the previous report and
court hearing, DCFS had started to mandate random drug tests. Bonnie was uncooperative. In order
to submit to a drug test, it was necessary for Bonnie to establish her identity. Bonnie apparently
had no identification and therefore was unable to comply. Bonnie also complained that she needed
more time to get to the service location than was being allowed. Bonnie had successfully moved
to her new apartment, but within a short period of time, the apartment strongly smelled of
ammonia, was littered with trash, dirty dishes, and spoiled food. Food was also found in Bonnie’s
bed and bathroom. Bonnie would remove and discard her used adult diapers throughout the
apartment, and the kitchen and bathroom sinks were being used as trash containers. DCFS noted
that Bonnie simply did not seem to understand these issues as she stated that her home was clean.
ADDUS had provided Bonnie with a habilitation worker, although despite diligent efforts, Bonnie
was unable to maintain cleanliness and personal hygiene. Additionally, the ADDUS worker was
attempting to teach Bonnie cooking skills but noted that the efforts were not successful because
Bonnie struggled to read and comprehend directions on the food packages. In addition to the
hygiene issues, the individuals who were living with Bonnie at the beginning of the case—Crystal
7 and David—were living with her again in the new apartment. Crystal and David reportedly used
methamphetamine and had left their child in Bonnie’s care over a weekend. DCFS noted that while
they wanted to engage in unannounced visits to confirm these reports, the entrance to the
Carbondale apartment building was locked and could only be accessed if a tenant provided access.
Bonnie continued to utilize her supervised visits with S.G. The visits were currently being
supervised by ADDUS workers who reported that Bonnie had no ability to parent S.G. and
described the visits as requiring the workers to “supervise two children.” Because of the
environmental issues within Bonnie’s apartment, ADDUS was directed to have future visits in
community locations. The court’s May 19, 2022, permanency order directed no changes to the
permanency goal and maintained custody and guardianship of S.G. with DCFS.
¶ 21 The next permanency report was filed on August 12, 2022. Bonnie had five random drug
tests from May 20, 2022, through July 27, 2022. All results were negative. The apartment
sanitation issues continued to be a major issue. In addition, DCFS was informed that a child was
seen in Bonnie’s bed. While Bonnie denied that anyone else was staying at her apartment and
informed DCFS that she only sees this child and his or her parents on weekends, DCFS noted that
these people have been seen in her apartment during the week. Habilitation services were closed
out by ADDUS because of Bonnie’s inability to follow basic instructions. Visitation was now
being conducted at a public library. ADDUS noted that Bonnie lacked the knowledge of age
appropriateness and was unable or unwilling to correct negative behaviors exhibited by S.G.
Visitation time was cut from four to two hours weekly. DCFS stated that Bonnie could earn back
the lost two hours “if she can follow A[DDUS] parenting expectations while on supervised visits.”
DCFS also noted that Bonnie had become uncooperative and had started to disallow scheduled
and unscheduled home visits. On one occasion, DCFS heard a television on inside the apartment
8 and heard Bonnie tell a child to “hush,” but Bonnie did not answer the door or answer her phone.
On one occasion, the DCFS worker went to the apartment to conduct a wellness check and
maintenance staff let her in. When the DCFS worker got inside the apartment, she noted that a
child and two adults were in the apartment sleeping. On another occasion, although Bonnie denied
that she was in a romantic relationship with Kent, the DCFS worker found Kent was asleep in
Bonnie’s bed.
¶ 22 On September 6, 2022, the trial court held a permanency hearing. Based upon the report
filed by DCFS, the fact that S.G. had been in foster care for two years, and because the case just
passed the DCFS legal screening process, the trial court changed the permanency goal to substitute
care pending termination of parental rights.
¶ 23 On December 6, 2022, DCFS filed a permanency report. Bonnie continued to test negative
on random drug tests. DCFS visited her apartment in early December 2022 and found that the
conditions of the apartment had not improved. Bonnie became uncooperative with her habilitation
services, and she was unsuccessfully closed out of the program.
¶ 24 On December 14, 2022, DCFS filed a family service plan consistent with the changed
permanency goal. DCFS concluded that Bonnie had made satisfactory progress in obtaining
mental health and psychological assessments, participating in random drug tests, providing signed
consent forms, and participating in supervised visitation with S.G. Bonnie was rated as having
made unsatisfactory progress on all other service plan objectives including parenting classes,
obtaining a domestic violence assessment, provision of appropriate food for S.G. at visits, and
maintenance of a clean and safe residential environment.
¶ 25 On January 19, 2023, DCFS formally filed its petition seeking to terminate Bonnie’s
parental rights. The petition alleged that Bonnie was unfit in that she had failed to maintain a
9 reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to S.G.’s welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b)
(West 2020)) and that she had had failed to make reasonable progress toward S.G.’s return during
any nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect, and specifically between March 1,
2022, to November 30, 2022 (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)).
¶ 26 On April 25, 2023, the trial court held the hearing on the State’s petition to terminate
Bonnie’s parental rights. The State called DCFS child welfare specialist, Gibraltar Taylor, who
testified that the case had been open for three years, and he had been assigned for the last year. He
confirmed that Bonnie had been discharged unsuccessfully from the parenting program; that she
was not always compliant with her random drug screens, completing only 5 of 10 in the past nine
months; and that her home remained unclean and unsafe despite the habilitation worker assigned
to her. In short, Taylor testified that Bonnie was no closer to the return of her child, and that
between March 1, 2022, and November 30, 2022, Bonnie did not successfully complete any
services.
¶ 27 Bonnie also testified at the fitness hearing. She testified that she complied with the random
drug tests. She confirmed that DCFS provided her with a housing advocate but testified that she
found the Carbondale apartment on her own without the advocate’s assistance. Bonnie testified
that at times the water service had been turned off in her apartment. She also sometimes was out
of dishwashing soap, and she could not clean dishes until she had money to buy soap. Bonnie
testified about her payee who pays her bills and puts money into her account. She complained of
the delay between her request for money and her access to the money.
¶ 28 At the conclusion of the fitness hearing, the trial court concluded that Bonnie was unfit
based upon the pleadings and evidence because she had not maintained a reasonable degree of
interest, concern, or responsibility as to S.G.’s welfare (id. § 1(D)(b)), and because she failed to
10 make reasonable progress toward the return of S.G. to her home during a nine-month period
(March 1, 2022, through November 30, 2022) following the adjudication of neglect (id.
§ 1(D)(m)(ii)).
¶ 29 The trial court next held the best interest hearing. The State called DCFS child welfare
specialist, Gibraltar Taylor, who testified that S.G. was doing well in her foster home. S.G. was
also doing well in school, engaged in extracurricular activities, was happy, and was loved by her
foster parents. Taylor stated that the foster parents were a potential adoptive home. Both parents
were employed, and S.G.’s medical and emotional needs were being met. Taylor testified that S.G.
was then seven years old and had indicated that she wanted to be adopted by her foster parents.
Taylor indicated that in his professional opinion, it was in S.G.’s best interest for Bonnie’s parental
rights to be terminated.
¶ 30 Bonnie also testified at the best interest hearing. She testified that she remained close to
S.G. and that at every visit, S.G. told her that she wanted to spend more time with her and wanted
to come home to live with Bonnie and with her dog, Buddy.
¶ 31 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence
that it was in S.G.’s best interest to terminate Bonnie’s parental rights. The court placed S.G. in
the guardianship of DCFS and granted the guardian the power to consent to S.G.’s adoption. The
court changed the permanency goal to adoption. Bonnie appeals from the trial court’s orders
finding that she was an unfit parent and terminating her parental rights.
¶ 32 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 33 The Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2020)) and the Adoption
Act (750 ILCS 50/0.01 et seq. (West 2020)) provide the legal authority for the involuntary
termination of parental rights in Illinois. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 30 (citing In re
11 J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329, 337 (2010)). 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
2020). The process mandated involves two hearings. In the first hearing, the State must prove by
clear and convincing evidence that the parent is an “unfit person” as defined by the Adoption
Act. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 30 (citing In re A.J., 269 Ill. App. 3d 824, 828
(1994)); 750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2020). If the trial court finds that the parent is unfit, the case
proceeds to a second hearing where 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. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App
(5th) 220793, ¶ 30 (citing In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329, 337-38 (2010)); 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West
2020).
¶ 34 When a parent appeals the trial court’s findings that a parent is unfit and that terminating
the parental rights is in the child’s best interest, the appellate 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 Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 31 (citing In re A.W., 231 Ill.
2d 92, 104 (2008)). The reviewing court gives great deference to the trial court’s finding of
unfitness because the court had the best opportunity to view and evaluate the parties and their
testimony. Id. (citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1052, 1064 (2006)). Therefore, we do not
reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of the witnesses on appeal. Id. (citing In re M.A.,
325 Ill. App. 3d 387, 391 (2001)). “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.” Id. (citing In re Vanessa K., 2011 IL App (3d) 100545, ¶ 28).
12 ¶ 35 A. Fitness Hearing
¶ 36 We first review the evidence to determine if the State met its burden of proving, by clear
and convincing evidence, that Bonnie was an “unfit person.” The trial court determined that the
State met its burden of proof on the following two bases: (1) that Bonnie failed to maintain a
reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to S.G.’s welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b)
(West 2020)); and (2) that Bonnie failed to make reasonable progress toward S.G.’s return within
the specific nine-month period from March 1, 2022, to November 30, 2022, following the
adjudication of neglect (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)).
¶ 37 1. Reasonable Degree of Interest, Concern, or Responsibility
¶ 38 The language used by our legislature in section 1(D)(b) of the Adoption Act is in the
disjunctive, meaning that any one of the three separate segments—interest or concern or
responsibility—“may be considered by itself as a basis for unfitness.” In re B’yata I., 2014 IL App
(2d) 130558-B, ¶ 31 (citing 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2012); In re Richard H., 376 Ill. App. 3d
162, 166 (2007)). To determine if a parent has shown a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or
responsibility for a minor’s welfare, the court “considers the parent’s efforts to visit and maintain
contact with the child as well as other indicia, such as inquiries into the child’s welfare.” Id. (citing
In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1064). The court can also consider evidence that the parent
completed his or her service plan as establishing the parent’s interest, concern, or responsibility.
Id. (citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1065). A parent’s effort is more important than a
parent’s success with the service plan objectives. Id. (citing In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill. 2d 255,
279 (1990)). “In this regard, the court examines the parent’s conduct concerning the child in the
context of the circumstances in which that conduct occurred.” Id. (citing In re Adoption of Syck,
138 Ill. 2d at 278). Circumstances of the parent’s difficulties in completion of plan objectives
13 and/or in attending visitation, including transportation issues and poverty, are relevant in assessing
the reasonable degree of a parent’s interest, concern, or responsibility for the minor’s welfare. Id.
(citing In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill. 2d at 278-79). “We are mindful, however, that a parent is
not fit merely because he or she has demonstrated some interest or affection toward the child.” Id.
(citing In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d 239, 259 (2004)). Instead, the court must objectively assess
whether the interest, concern, or responsibility is reasonable. Id. (citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill.
App. 3d at 1064).
¶ 39 While this case began in part with a suspected substance abuse problem, the primary
problem was the safety and cleanliness of housing. Bonnie tested positive for methamphetamine
when S.G. was removed from Bonnie’s care, but she never tested positive again. However,
Bonnie’s housing issues never improved despite access to Adult Protective Services and DCFS
resources.
¶ 40 Bonnie underwent comprehensive psychological testing that revealed extremely low
cognitive, adaptive functioning, and academic abilities. Dr. Hernandez indicated that these deficits
resulted in Bonnie’s difficulty in dealing with daily tasks, that Bonnie would require ongoing
support, and that her ability to independently parent S.G. would be “unlikely and unsafe.” Bonnie
seemingly had no ability to ascertain that other adults who moved into her apartment or requested
money from her were doing so with possible ill intent. At the beginning of the case, a couple who
were addicts were living with Bonnie, even though she was not allowed to have roommates
pursuant to her public housing contract. Later, a couple with a child, believed to be the same
couple, were seen several times in Bonnie’s new apartment. If the caseworker asked Bonnie about
the child or the couple, Bonnie would deny that they were staying with her.
14 ¶ 41 Bonnie was provided with parenting services through Project 12-Ways, and she was also
provided with specialized habilitation services by ADDUS. Bonnie was eventually dropped from
both services. The reasons both Project 12-Ways and ADDUS ended their services were virtually
identical. Bonnie had no ability to retain the most basic of cleaning and cooking information, failed
to keep any portion of the house clean, and used sinks and the floor as repositories for trash,
including used toilet paper and Bonnie’s adult diapers. The filth was made worse by the fact that
Bonnie would not clean dirty dishes, which allowed mold to grow and attracted insects. In addition,
Bonnie had a dog, and workers reported that the home smelled of dog urine. When asked why she
did not follow through with the cleaning training she received from the providers, Bonnie would
cite to a lack of money to buy dishwashing soap and once claimed that her water was shut off.
Bonnie was evicted from the apartment she had when the case began because of the lack of
sanitation, and shortly after moving to the latest apartment, it was also full of trash and debris.
Workers asked Bonnie about the status of her home, but Bonnie seemed to believe that despite the
conditions at issue, the apartment was clean. Given those responses, Bonnie seemingly never
understood what was preventing her from completion of these housing-based services. The fact
that Bonnie did not complete these critical services required by DCFS supports the trial court’s
conclusion that Bonnie did not exhibit a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility
for S.G. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020); In re B’yata I., 2014 IL App (2d) 130558-B, ¶ 31
(citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1065).
¶ 42 Bonnie consistently used her visitation opportunities with S.G. In that respect, Bonnie
seemed to exhibit a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for her daughter. 750
ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020). However, considering the trash and other unclean aspects of
Bonnie’s newest apartment, visitation was moved out of Bonnie’s apartment for S.G.’s safety, and
15 the number of hours of visitation was decreased. Bonnie was advised that if her apartment could
be brought up to the safety standards relative to cleanliness, she could gain back her extra visitation
hours. However, the state of Bonnie’s apartment never improved, and thus Bonnie’s visitation with
S.G. remained reduced. In addition, the ADDUS supervisors of the visitation sessions were
frustrated by Bonnie’s refusal or inability to maintain control and consistency with S.G. Of note,
the workers found that they were supervising “two children” during those sessions in that Bonnie’s
cognitive disabilities resulted in her own childlike behavior. We are reminded that Bonnie’s
cognitive struggles must be considered in determining if she showed that she had a reasonable
degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for her daughter. In re B’yata I., 2014 IL App (2d)
130558-B, ¶ 31 (citing In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill. 2d at 278-79). As stated earlier in this order,
“[W]e are mindful, however, that a parent is not fit merely because he or she has demonstrated
some interest or affection toward the child.” Id. (citing In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d at 259). We
find that despite Bonnie’s interest in engaging in visitation, the facts of this case support the trial
court’s conclusion that Bonnie did not exhibit a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or
responsibility for S.G. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020).
¶ 43 We must give great deference to the trial court’s finding of unfitness, as the court was able
to evaluate the demeanor and testimony of Bonnie and her case specialist, Taylor. In re Za. G.,
2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 31 (citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1064). We conclude
that the trial court’s finding that Bonnie was unfit because she failed to establish a reasonable
degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for S.G. is not against the manifest weight of the
evidence. Id. (citing In re A.W., 231 Ill. 2d at 104).
16 ¶ 44 2. Reasonable Progress Within a Nine-Month Period
¶ 45 The term “reasonable progress” requires an objective determination regarding the amount
of progress based upon the conditions existing at the time the minor child’s custody was removed
from the parent. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 47 (citing In re D.T., 2017 IL App (3d)
170120, ¶ 17).
“ ‘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. (quoting In re D.T.,
2017 IL App (3d) 170120, ¶ 17).
“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. (quoting In re D.T., 2017 IL App (3d) 170120, ¶ 17).
¶ 46 The foundational issue in this case was the safety and cleanliness of Bonnie’s housing.
DCFS became involved via an intact family case in early 2019. By late June 2020, Bonnie’s
housing situation had deteriorated, and DCFS took S.G. into protective custody.
¶ 47 Here, Bonnie was successful in having the psychological testing and a mental health
assessment. Although she initially tested positive for methamphetamine, she never tested positive
again despite numerous random drug tests. There came a time where Bonnie felt that she was not
being given enough time to arrange for transportation or to obtain a new Illinois identification card,
which was required for the drug tests, and so DCFS marked those tests as missed. However, she
17 soon began submitting to drug tests again, and as before, all test results were negative. Bonnie was
also consistent with visitation sessions with S.G.
¶ 48 At issue from the time that this case was being labeled as an intact family case in 2019 was
the safety and cleanliness of Bonnie’s apartment. Bonnie’s cognitive difficulties factored into her
inability to understand how to keep her apartment clean, or how to read the directions on boxes for
food preparation purposes. Regardless, Bonnie was aware that she was required to work with the
Project 12-Ways and ADDUS service providers, and yet she could not, or would not, comply with
the standards of cleanliness required to keep S.G. safe.
¶ 49 Additionally, Bonnie had issues with other individuals taking financial advantage of her.
When she stayed in a homeless shelter, she met a couple who eventually moved in with her. The
couple were substance abusers and used Bonnie’s access to money for themselves. Despite the
involvement of the overseer of Bonnie’s money and bills, this couple, and then later the man named
“Johnny” who demanded $500 via a video call during a visitation session, continued to take
financial advantage of Bonnie. Involvement with these opportunistic individuals was part of the
foundational reasons that S.G. was removed from Bonnie’s home, as DCFS was concerned that
S.G. was not living in a safe environment.
¶ 50 Overall, Bonnie’s efforts to correct the housing issues that brought S.G. into this DCFS
case were insufficient. Bonnie’s overall progress on her service plan objectives was nonexistent
during the nine-month period from March 1, 2022, to November 30, 2022. In addition, her
visitation schedule with S.G. was reduced because of these housing and safety concerns.
Reasonable progress is established when the trial court finds that 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.” In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 47 (quoting In re D.T.,
18 2017 IL App (3d) 170120, ¶ 17). In this case, Bonnie was no closer to having S.G. returned to her
custody than she was in late June 2020 when DCFS removed S.G. from her home.
¶ 51 We conclude that the trial court’s order finding that Bonnie failed to show any progress
toward correcting these conditions is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re
A.W., 231 Ill. 2d at 104.
¶ 52 B. Best Interest Hearing
¶ 53 Termination of a parent’s rights is a difficult and final step. In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill.
2d at 274-75. Parents maintain the important right to raise their own children. Id. However, when
a parent has been declared “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 at 337-38. The interests of the
parent and the child remain concurrent “to the extent that they both ‘share a vital interest in
preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship’ ” until the court declares that the
parent is unfit. In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 363 (2004) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745,
760-61 (1982)).
¶ 54 At the best interest hearing, 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 2020); In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 366. We review the trial court’s best-interest decision with
the manifest weight of the evidence standard. In re Jay. H., 395 Ill. App. 3d 1063, 1071 (2009);
In re S.J., 368 Ill. App. 3d 749, 755 (2006). “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 Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 53 (citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill.
App. 3d at 1072). On appeal from an order terminating a parent’s rights, the reviewing court gives
19 great deference to the trial court’s decision because the trial court was in a much better position to
see the witnesses and judge their credibility. In re K.B., 314 Ill. App. 3d 739, 748 (2000).
¶ 55 “[A]t a best-interests 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 analyze 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 2020). Another factor the trial court may consider is the
likelihood of adoption. In re Tashika F., 333 Ill. App. 3d at 170.
¶ 56 During the best interest hearing, Bonnie testified that she remained close to S.G. We do
not have reason to doubt this testimony. However, the trial court found that S.G.’s current foster
home provided a more permanent and appropriate placement, and that the foster parents were
willing to adopt her. The court noted that the foster parents were both employed. S.G. was their
only child, and S.G. had indicated that she wanted to be adopted by her foster parents. DCFS child
welfare specialist, Taylor, testified that S.G. was now seven years old and enrolled in school and
extracurricular activities. Her medical and emotional needs were being met in this placement.
¶ 57 Here, the record clearly establishes that termination of Bonnie’s parental rights was the
appropriate outcome for S.G. S.G.’s safety and stability were of paramount importance, and her
foster parents provided her with both. Further, S.G.’s foster parents plan to adopt her, which will
provide her with permanence. We conclude that the trial court’s decision to terminate Bonnie’s
parental rights was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d 476,
498-99 (2002).
20 ¶ 58 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 59 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgments of the circuit court of Jackson County
finding that Bonnie was an unfit parent and that the best interest of S.G. required the termination
of her parental rights.
¶ 60 Affirmed.