2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U No. 2-22-0156 Order filed October 31, 2022
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(l). ______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
In re S.R., a Minor ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Kane County. ) ) ) No. 20-JA-54 ) (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Honorable Petitioner-Appellee, v. S.S., ) Kathryn Karayannis, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE HUDSON delivered the judgment of the court. Justices McLaren and Jorgensen concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: We grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating respondent’s parental rights, concluding there exist no issues of arguable merit to be raised on appeal.
¶2 Respondent, S.S., appeals from the trial court’s order finding her unfit to parent her
daughter, S.R., and terminating her parental rights. Her appellate counsel has moved to withdraw
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has read the record and concluded
there exist no issues of arguable merit to be raised on appeal. See In re S.M., 314 Ill. App. 3d 682,
685 (2000) (holding Anders applies to cases involving termination of parental rights). Counsel
has supported his motion with a memorandum of law providing a statement of facts, potential 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
issues, and argument as to why those issues lack arguable merit. Counsel served respondent with
a copy of the motion and memorandum. We advised respondent that she had 30 days to respond
to counsel’s motion. That time has passed, and no response was filed. We conclude that this
appeal lacks arguable merit based on the reasons set forth in counsel’s memorandum. Therefore,
we grant counsel’s motion and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶3 We note that this appeal was accelerated under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a) (eff.
July 1, 2018). Pursuant to that rule, the appellate court must, except for good cause shown, issue
its decision in an accelerated case within 150 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. Ill. S. Ct.
R. 311(a)(5) (eff. July 1, 2018). Here, respondent filed her notice of appeal on May 11, 2022, and
her amended notice of appeal on May 18, 2022. On July 6, 2022, respondent filed a motion seeking
(1) a limited remand so respondent could surrender her parental rights and consent to the adoption
and (2) to withdraw the appeal. On July 25, 2022, this court denied the motion for limited remand
and denied, without prejudice, the motion to withdraw the appeal. Respondent’s counsel was
ordered to file a motion to withdraw as counsel in accordance with Anders within 35 days. Counsel
filed his motion to withdraw on August 29, 2022; respondent was given until October 3, 2022, to
respond (7 days before the 150-day period expired). Due to these circumstances, we find good
cause for this decision to be issued after the time frame mandated by Rule 311 (a).
¶4 I. BACKGROUND
¶5 Respondent is the mother of S.R., who was born on October 31, 2009, and S.W., who was
born on October 9, 2015. J.R. is S.R.’s father and resides in Chicago. On April 27, 2020, the State
filed a petition for adjudication of neglect on behalf of ten-year-old S.R. 1 The State alleged that
1 A separate neglect petition was filed on behalf of S.W. and is subject to a separate appeal
-2- 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
S.R. was a neglected minor and her environment was injurious to her welfare because respondent’s
substance-abuse issues and/or history place S.R. at risk of harm and her father failed to protect or
care for her. 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020).
¶6 A shelter-care hearing was held the same day via Zoom. Both respondent and S.R.’s father
waived their rights to be heard and agreed that there was probable cause of neglect, that there was
an urgent and immediate necessity to remove the minor from the home, and that reasonable efforts
had been made by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to prevent removal.
DCFS was granted temporary guardianship and custody. Both parents were admonished that they
must cooperate with DCFS and the terms of any service plans to correct the conditions that resulted
in S.R.’s removal.
¶7 The State offered the following factual basis for the petition at the shelter-care hearing. On
March 19, 2020, the police were called to respondent’s home for a welfare check based on a report
that four-year-old S.W. was at home with no supervision. The officers found S.W. alone in the
home. While the officers were on scene, respondent returned home and informed them that she
left S.W. home alone because she wanted to go smoke marijuana. Respondent could not tell the
officers how long she had been gone or where she went. The officers noticed a strong odor of
marijuana emanating from respondent. This incident prompted DCFS to open an investigation,
which was the twelfth investigation regarding respondent. DCFS implemented a safety plan which
provided that both of respondent’s children would stay with their maternal grandparents and
(In re S.W., 2022 IL App (2d) 220157-U). Neither of the putative fathers is a party on appeal.
Therefore, the proceedings with respect to them will be discussed in this decision only when
pertinent to the issues at hand.
-3- 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
respondent would participate in substance-abuse services, undergo a mental-health assessment,
and comply with all recommended services. Thereafter, respondent missed two scheduled
substance-abuse assessments and failed to participate in a mental-health assessment. On April 24,
2020, DCFS took protective custody of the minors due to respondent’s noncompliance.
Respondent signed a short-term guardianship agreement which gave the maternal grandparents
guardianship over the minors. This was later rescinded immediately prior to the shelter-care
hearing.
¶8 An adjudicatory hearing was held via Zoom over several dates: July 21, September 8,
September 22, and October 6, 2020 (the continuances are attributable to coordinating DNA testing
and service of notice in this case and DNA testing in S.W.’s case). Respondent stipulated to the
allegations in the petition that S.R. was neglected and her environment was injurious because of
respondent’s substance-abuse issues and/or history placing her at risk of harm. The court took
judicial notice of numerous documents, including several DCFS reports, and heard the testimony
of Tina McCullough. McCullough is a child-protection specialist with DCFS and was initially
assigned to investigate S.R.’s case. She stated that respondent admitted that she left S.W. at home
alone in March 2020 so she could go smoke marijuana. She also stated that S.R. was not at home
at the time of the incident. S.R. was in the care of J.R. at that time. Initially, J.R. told McCullough
that he was willing to keep S.R. in his care, but he informed her that he changed his mind on April
24, 2020, which is when DCFS took protective custody of both children. J.R. had also declined to
cooperate with DCFS. After considering the evidence, the court found S.R. a neglected minor as
to J.R. in J.R.’s absence. S.R. was adjudicated neglected, and the court admonished both parents
to cooperate with DCFS, participate in all required services, and make reasonable efforts and
-4- 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
reasonable progress to correct the conditions that lead to S.R.’s removal. S.R. was to remain in
temporary custody of DCFS. Her placement continued to be with her maternal grandparents.
¶9 A dispositional hearing took place on November 16, 2020. Respondent’s counsel
appeared, but respondent did not. The court reviewed a report prepared by the Court Appointed
Special Advocate (CASA), the service plan, the dispositional hearing report, and respondent’s
integrated assessment. The court noted that respondent’s integrated assessment was completed on
June 16, 2020, and the following services were recommended: a psychiatric evaluation, substance-
abuse evaluation, random drug tests, and individual and family therapy. She was also required to
find stable housing and participate in consistent visitation with the minors. The court found that
respondent was not cooperating with the agency and not participating in services. As such,
respondent was found unfit, unwilling, or unable to properly protect, train, or discipline S.R. S.R.
was made a ward of the court. The goal set was for return home within 12 months. Respondent
was admonished, in her absence, to cooperate with DCFS, complete all required services, and
correct the condition that brought S.R. into custody, or she would risk having her parental rights
terminated.
¶ 10 The first permanency review hearing was held on April 20, 2021. Respondent attempted to
appear via Zoom, but she was disconnected and did not reconnect. The case proceeded in her
absence. The court noted that the parents had done “very little, if anything” regarding services.
Respondent had informed her attorney that she scheduled a mental-health assessment and
contacted the Renz Center, which is the substance-abuse program at the Ecker Center for
Behavioral Health (Ecker Center). Based on the reports, the court found that DCFS had made
reasonable efforts to provide services, but respondent had not made reasonable efforts or progress
towards the goal of returning S.R. home. The trial court changed the goal to return home pending
-5- 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
status hearing (705 ILCS 405/2-28(B-1) (West 2020)), and respondent was admonished that she
must “get going on the compliance with the agencies” to correct the conditions that brought S.R.
into foster care.
¶ 11 Another permanency review hearing was held on July 27, 2021. Respondent appeared.
The court reviewed a CASA report, a DCFS report, and a client service plan from July 20, 2021.
Referring to the DCFS report, the court found that respondent had not engaged in any services.
She had not engaged in substance-abuse services. Respondent did not sign consents for release of
mental-health records so her caseworker could verify respondent’s assertion that she contacted
Ecker Center. Respondent was asked to complete random drug tests, but she would not give the
caseworker her address to facilitate scheduling and notification. One drug test was scheduled in
July, but respondent failed to appear. Respondent stated that she was employed but provided no
documentation in support. After reviewing the reports and determining that DCFS had made
reasonable efforts at offering services and making those services available to respondent, the court
ruled that respondent had not made reasonable efforts or progress towards reunification Finding
the prognosis for reunification poor, the trial court changed the goal to substitute care pending
termination of parental rights.
¶ 12 On August 18, 2021, the State filed a petition for termination of parental rights and for
power to consent to adoption alleging that respondent was unfit because she: (1) failed to maintain
a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to S.R.’s welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b)
(West 2020)); (2) failed to protect S.R. from conditions within his environment that were injurious
to his welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(g) (West 2020)); (3) failed to make reasonable efforts to correct
the conditions which were the basis for S.R.’s removal from her care or to make reasonable
progress toward S.R.’s return to her care during a nine-month period from November 17, 2020,
-6- 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
through August 17, 2021, after she was adjudicated a neglected minor under section 2-4 of the
Juvenile Court Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m) (West 2020)); and (4) had abandoned S.R. (750 ILCS
50/1(D)(a) (West 2020)).
¶ 13 On December 9, 2021, respondent’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw.
Counsel stated that respondent had not appeared in court since July 27, 2021. Further, counsel had
no contact with respondent since that date. Counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted, and
respondent was given 21 days to retain a new attorney or file her pro se appearance.
¶ 14 On January 5, 2022, the case was set for hearing on the State’s petition to terminate
respondent’s parental rights. Respondent appeared via Zoom and stated that she was currently
residing at the Community Crisis Center (Crisis Center) in Elgin. The public defender was
reappointed to represent her and made an oral motion to continue the hearing on the petition. The
motion was granted over CASA’s objection. Respondent was admonished that she must cooperate
with her attorney and appear in court when required. The court stated that if respondent is unable
to make arrangements to successfully connect to the proceedings remotely, she should appear in
person.
¶ 15 On January 27, 2022, a permanency review hearing was held. The court reviewed a CASA
report, a DCFS report, a service plan from October 2021, and a counseling report from Braden
Center. Respondent asked that the goal be changed back to return home, noting that she had started
therapy, was employed, and was seeking stable housing. The court agreed with the State and
CASA that the goal should remain substitute care pending termination of parental rights. The
court noted that S.R. had been in protective custody for nearly two years and deserved permanency.
Further, the court noted that although respondent had begun individual counseling in October
2021, she had not completed a psychiatric evaluation, participated in any family therapy, or started
-7- 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
parenting education. Respondent was not regularly visiting with S.R. The caseworker had been
unable to observe any visits because respondent had not appeared for scheduled supervised visits.
As of the October 2021 service plan, respondent had not completed a substance-abuse evaluation
and appeared for only one of three scheduled random drug tests, testing positive for marijuana.
She missed four additional drug tests, is currently unemployed, and is living at the Crisis Center
and sometimes staying with friends.
¶ 16 Respondent was allowed to make a statement. She stated that she started services in July,
but there were numerous delays due to COVID-19 restrictions. She explained that it was difficult
for her to make it to the appointments because of her job and lack of transportation. As a result,
she had lost her job and ended up getting sick. She acknowledged that she did not have a place to
live, but later said she recently found an apartment and a job. She expressed that she felt she was
not getting the help she needed from DCFS, that when she asked for help, she was told they could
not help her due to COVID-19, and that she had to do everything on her own.
¶ 17 The court found respondent had made some efforts, but those efforts were not reasonable
or substantial. The case was set for hearing on the State’s petition.
¶ 18 The hearing on the petition to terminate respondent’s parental rights convened on February
22, 2022. The trial judge stated that he was informed that respondent wished to voluntarily consent
to S.W.’s adoption by his maternal grandparents. Respondent affirmed that she had signed the
consent forms and she wished to consent to the adoption. However, while being questioned about
giving consent, respondent gave equivocal answers about whether she read the documents
thoroughly before signing. When asked if she wanted to proceed to trial, she answered “I want
my kids. I agree for my mother to adopt my children. I don’t know. Seriously.” She also said “I
know my rights is [sic] technically are going to get revoked today” and “I want my mom to adopt
-8- 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
my kids because I don’t know the outcome.” After further discussion with the judge, respondent
indicated that she did not understand exactly what was happening, but she stated that she wanted
to protect her children and fight for them. The judge concluded that the case would proceed to a
trial on the petition. Thereafter, respondent objected and repeatedly stated that she wanted her
mother to adopt her children. The judge again asked respondent whether she wanted to consent to
the adoption or to go to trial. Respondent replied, “Can I pick both?” Based upon this exchange,
the judge ruled that she did not accept the signed consent and the matter would proceed to trial.
¶ 19 The trial court commenced the unfitness phase of the proceedings to terminate respondent’s
parental rights. This hearing took place over the following dates: February 22, March 4, and April
8, 2022.
¶ 20 Kayla Milakis, a caseworker with Youth Services Bureau of Illinois Valley (YSB),
testified. She was assigned to S.R.’s case from May 2020 until November 2021. She testified as
to the services detailed in respondent’s integrated assessment. Milakis testified that respondent
had completed a mental-health assessment at Braden Center and started individual counseling, but
she had otherwise failed to complete any other recommended services. Milakis stated that
respondent was often not cooperative and communication with her was very inconsistent.
Respondent frequently did not answer her phone and did not return phone calls. Respondent also
did not sign the consents she was asked to sign. Milakis testified that at the beginning of this case,
respondent was living in a three-bedroom apartment near the grandparents, but she later learned
that respondent was evicted and moved to Chicago. Milakis said that she did not hear from
respondent between October 2020 (when she observed a visit between respondent and her
children) and January or February of 2021 (when respondent told her she was having difficulties
with housing and had moved to Chicago). Regarding visitation, Milakis testified that respondent’s
-9- 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
visitation with S.W. and S.R. was inconsistent. After moving to Chicago, she would return
“randomly” to see S.R. Respondent reportedly spoke with the children on the phone weekly, and
she would stop in and see them once a month. Milakis stated that respondent was not in their
everyday lives. Milakis testified that respondent did not comply with random drug testing. Milakis
opined that respondent’s parental rights should be terminated because of how long the case has
been open and her lack of progress or efforts in the required services.
¶ 21 When counsel for CASA questioned Milakis, she testified that respondent’s integrated
assessment revealed that respondent had previously been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder
and that she also has issues with anxiety and depression. Milakis stated that two administrative
case reviews were held regarding the children, but respondent failed to participate in either review.
In January 2021, respondent contacted Milakis to inform her that she was living in Chicago, but
she refused to give Milakis her address “due to respect to whoever she was staying with.” Milakis
testified that she sent referrals and information about service providers to respondent, including
efforts to refer her for services at the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) while she was living in
Chicago. Respondent was referred for a psychiatric assessment, but she did not make any
arrangements to complete it. She never provided Milakis with proof of employment. Milakis
testified that when respondent was living in Chicago, the agency offered to facilitate visitation by
bringing the children to Chicago to visit her, but respondent did not respond to this offer of
assistance.
¶ 22 On cross-examination by respondent’s attorney, Milakis testified that throughout the case,
respondent reported to YSB that she was engaged in services at Ecker Center. However,
respondent never signed any consents for the release of her records, and Milakis could not verify
that respondent engaged in any therapy or even called Ecker Center without signed consents. After
- 10 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
learning that respondent had moved to Chicago in January 2021, Milakis also learned respondent
had not actually completed any services at Ecker Center. Milakis explained that she found out that
respondent had previously contacted the Ecker Center, but during her intake interview respondent
revealed that she had lost her job and was unable to pay for services based on their sliding scale.
At this point, because respondent had moved to Chicago, Milakis made efforts to arrange services
for respondent at UIC. Respondent was given information about the UIC program and reported
that she would follow up, but she never did. Milakis did not make further inquiries with UIC
because she subsequently learned respondent had already moved back to Carpentersville. Milakis
learned that around June 2021, respondent contact the Ecker Center again, but respondent was still
unable to pay for services on their sliding scale. Milakis referred respondent to Braden Center
where respondent was put on a waiting list. Respondent’s referral to Braden Center was accepted
in August 2021 for her to commence services. By this time, the goal in this case had already been
changed to substitute care pending termination of parental rights. Milakis stated that sometime
thereafter respondent contacted Braden Center, completed a mental-health assessment, and started
individual counseling. However, to her knowledge, respondent had not completed a substance-
abuse assessment or any substance-abuse treatment and had not complied with random drug
testing.
¶ 23 Regarding visitation, Milakis stated that initially, respondent had biweekly in-person
visitation during COVID-19 restrictions. In April 2021, the schedule was set for weekly visitation,
but because the children were placed with their grandparents, respondent was allowed to visit any
time. Milakis testified that during her home visits with S.W. and S.R., the children informed her
that they “barely talk” to respondent and that they spoke with her on the phone, but she did not
spend much time with them. When asked whether there was any agency supervision of visits after
- 11 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
April 2021, she stated no because respondent was not regularly visiting with the children during
that time.
¶ 24 Mark Harvey of YSB was called to testify. He is the foster-care caseworker who was
assigned to take over S.R.’s case in October 2021. He first spoke with respondent in December
2021, when respondent expressed her frustration that no one was helping her access the required
services. At this time, Harvey stated that he contacted Braden Center to confirm everything was
set for respondent to continue individual counseling, which had commenced in October 2021.
Harvey testified that he asked for a counseling report from Braden Center on the day of the hearing
and was informed by respondent’s counselor that respondent had not attended the last three
scheduled sessions. Harvey scheduled three random drug tests for respondent, two in December
2021 and one in January 2022. Respondent appeared for one test in December, and she was
negative for all substances. She did not appear for the other two tests. Harvey stated that
respondent had not completed any other services. Regarding visitation, the grandparents informed
Harvey that respondent stops by regularly and visits, but Harvey testified that he had only observed
one visit.
¶ 25 When questioned by counsel for CASA, Harvey confirmed that when he became S.R.’s
caseworker in October 2021, the goal in this case had already changed to substitute care pending
termination of parental rights. He stated that respondent was referred to parenting classes in June
or July 2021, but she never started. Respondent reached out in the February 2022 to see if she
could begin parenting classes, but her referral had expired.
¶ 26 The State asked the court to take judicial notice of, inter alia, the shelter-care, adjudicatory,
and dispositional orders in this case. The State moved for admission into evidence a number of
documents, including the integrated assessments, several service plans, and several YSB reports.
- 12 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
¶ 27 Counsel for CASA called Leti Cruz to testify. Cruz was assigned as the advocate
supervisor on S.R.’s case in December 2021. Cruz stated that according to the grandmother,
respondent stops by daily to see the children. She testified regarding a home visit she made on
December 30, 2021. She observed a verbal altercation between respondent and the grandmother,
explaining that respondent was upset and blamed the grandmother for getting DCFS involved in
her life. During this altercation, respondent walked out of the home and the grandmother locked
the door behind her. Respondent then hit the side of the home with a closed fist and knocked on
the door. Cruz stated that S.R. and two other children were upstairs during the confrontation, and
she believed their voices were loud enough that the children could have heard it.
¶ 28 Respondent testified on her own behalf. She stated that she did not have a good relationship
with McCullough, the first social worker assigned to her case. She explained that McCullough
would not return her calls or give her complete information when respondent talked to her.
Respondent stated that she called Ecker Center on her own around April 2020 seeking to arrange
the services she needed and there was some confusion regarding insurance, referrals, and as to
whether she was seeking services on her own or pursuant to a pending legal proceeding. She stated
that COVID-19 created difficulties in obtaining services because there were limited appointments
and waiting lists. She testified that there was a 10- to 12-week waiting period to see a therapist,
but she did finally start seeing a therapist at Ecker Center. However, she also testified that she did
not begin seeing a therapist there before she moved to Chicago. She asserted that during this time
she was in communication with Milakis, and she acknowledged that there was some confusion
about where she was supposed to be going for services, Ecker Center or Braden Center.
¶ 29 Respondent testified that after being evicted in January 2021, she lived in Chicago, staying
in three or four different hotels and with several different relatives. She also stated that she moved
- 13 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
to Chicago because she did not want to go back to a shelter and had nowhere else to go. She
contended that her caseworkers would not help her find housing after she was evicted. However,
she also acknowledged that she informed her caseworker that she decided to stay in Chicago to be
closer to family. Respondent returned to Carpentersville in August or September 2021. When
asked if she kept in contact with her caseworker during her time in Chicago, she said she spoke
with her several times. Respondent acknowledged that Milakis arranged services for her at UIC,
but respondent stated she never followed up. When she moved back to Carpentersville, she stayed
with friends and then moved to the Crisis Center. She testified that she had several temporary jobs
during this time, but she was unemployed as of November 2021.
¶ 30 When asked about visitation, respondent explained that she tried to see her children as often
as possible. While living in Chicago, she said she did her best to visit her children, either by
talking on the phone or finding transportation to go see them. She testified that she has issues with
her mother taking care of her children because she never had a healthy relationship with her mother
and her mother does not like being around her. When asked whether she has ever sought to arrange
visitation and been denied, she said no.
¶ 31 Respondent testified that she began counseling in October 2021. She said that she
participated in parenting classes via telephone on Saturdays, when asked further, she admitted that
she attended only once “because it was hard to get through the lines.” She also stated that she
requested referrals for a substance-abuse assessment and treatment but never received one. She
then testified that she did a substance-abuse assessment, and no counseling was recommended.
She later stated that she would see a counselor from Braden Center every month as a part of a
substance-abuse treatment program. Respondent testified that she completed “a lot” of random
drug tests, stating it was more than seven, and she tested positive on “three to four” of them. She
- 14 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
explained to her caseworker that the reason she had positive tests was “I had deaths in the family,
depression, my thyroid.” Respondent asserted that she only missed one or two drug tests and it
was because she got off work late. Respondent testified that she wants to continue to work on the
services necessary to have the children returned to her.
¶ 32 Counsel for CASA asked respondent about the incident leading to the removal of her
children. Respondent acknowledged that she left S.W. home alone, but she denied that it was
because she wanted to smoke marijuana. She denied another incident in 2018 when she purportedly
left both of her children home alone. Respondent disputed testimony that McCullough provided
referrals or information for respondent to obtain substance-abuse and mental-health services at
Ecker Center. Respondent said she went to Ecker Center in April 2020 (during the COVID-19
lockdown) and a receptionist there told her there were no referrals. She later acknowledged
McCullough told her about an appointment scheduled for April 27, 2020, at Ecker Center.
Respondent told McCullough that her neighbor would take her to the appointment, but she did not
go because her neighbor backed out. Respondent admitted that she was upset about having to
complete services because she had already completed these services in Chicago before this
investigation was opened. She explained there was a previous DCFS case in Chicago as a result
of “a lot of false calls being made.” She stated that she completed parenting classes and had a
psychiatric evaluation and worked with a “peer counselor” who helped her engage in services. In
June 2021, respondent went to Ecker Center for a second intake interview. She admitted that she
never engaged in substance-abuse services at Ecker Center. Instead, she stated that she began
substance-abuse services at Braden Center in October 2021.
¶ 33 When questioned about random drug tests again, respondent stated that she completed all
of the drug tests she was asked to do between May 2020 and October 2021. She asserted there
- 15 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
were three or four tests and all of the results were negative. She then acknowledged that one was
positive, and she admitted to using marijuana and knowing the result would be positive. She told
Milakis that she used marijuana to “self-medicate” and she told her previous caseworker,
McCullough, “that after being diagnosed with thyroid that I started smoking Marijuana a lot
because I was told by my endocrinologist that that was a way to decrease the inflammation in my
thyroid gland.” She acknowledged that at the time of her integrated assessment, she reported that
she smoked marijuana about four times per week. She admitted that she continues to smoke
marijuana twice a week. Respondent acknowledged that she was unable to obtain a medical
marijuana card. Respondent testified that she was currently staying with a friend where she sleeps
in the living room. She also has been using the services of the Crisis Center since October 2021.
¶ 34 The court heard closing arguments on April 19, 2022, and issued its ruling as to the fitness
phase of the proceedings three days later. The court found the State proved, by clear and
convincing evidence, that respondent was unfit because she failed to: maintain a reasonable degree
of interest, concern or responsibility as to S.R.’s welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020));
protect S.R. from conditions within her environment that were injurious to her welfare (750 ILCS
5/1(D)(g) (West 2020)); and make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis
for S.R.’s removal from her care or to make reasonable progress toward S.R.’s return to her care
during a nine-month period from November 17, 2020, through August 17, 2021, after she was
adjudicated a neglected minor (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m) (West 2020)). The court found that the State
had not proven the allegations that respondent had abandoned S.R. (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(a) (West
2020)). The trial judge stated that respondent’s testimony was “largely not credible, was also very
disjointed and, frankly, rather confusing in relation to timeframes that she was trying to give in
relation to when she was allegedly receiving services at different locations.” The judge found the
- 16 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
testimony of the DCFS and YSB employees to be credible, specifically noting that Milakis stated
that respondent did not ask her about services until April 2021. The court described in great detail
respondent’s lack of interest and concern in this case, including, failing to cooperate and
communicate with her caseworkers, failing to complete any services, failing to appear at numerous
court hearings, failing to comply with random drug testing, and failing to engage in consistent
visitation with the children.
¶ 35 The case proceeded to the best-interest phase of the termination proceedings. The State
called Harvey, the YSB caseworker assigned to S.R.’s case since October 2021. He testified that
S.R. is currently 12 years old and in the care of her maternal grandparents. They live in a single-
family home in Elgin. Her 6-year-old brother, S.W., and her 20-year-old cousin live there as well.
He described S.R.’s foster family as a typical loving family. He testified that S.R. is doing well.
She had been in individual therapy for a while but was discharge approximately two months before
the hearing. Both children have adjusted to living with their grandparents. The grandparents are
willing to adopt the children and provide for their needs. The best-interest report prepared by
CASA was admitted into evidence.
¶ 36 Respondent testified on her own behalf. When asked if she believed it was in the best
interests of her children to live with their grandparents, respondent replied “I don’t know—I
don’t—I agree with it and I disagree with it.” She testified that the grandmother allows S.R. to
talk to respondent in a disrespectful way. She also expressed concern that the children were not
being treated equally. She explained that she is the youngest of 13 siblings and felt mistreated,
neglected, bullied, and like she could never get her mother’s approval. She described difficulties
growing up in a home with so many siblings. She testified that she felt that the best interests of
her children would be to live with her. She explained, “Besides waking up every day and having
- 17 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
a chance to redeem myself, that is the only—that’s the only place I got love from.” She stated that
she found an apartment and is “working towards the classes” to try to regain custody of her
children. She said that she wanted her children to be with her parents because she would at least
have the opportunity to see them, but she did not trust her parents to have her children because of
the way her mother allows them to disrespect her.
¶ 37 After consideration of the statutory best-interests factors, the court found that it was in
S.R.’s best interests that respondent’s parental rights be terminated and that DCFS be given
authority to consent to her adoption by her maternal grandparents. Referring to the CASA report,
the court noted that the children have lived with their grandparents for two years and they are in a
home where they are well cared for and loved. The children do well in school. Their grandparents
are engaged with the children, taking them to church activities and the park. The grandparents and
the children share the same cultural and religious background and maintain a strong connection
with extended family. They host family barbeques and facilitate interaction with cousins,
including sleepovers when there is no school. Though S.W. misses his mother, the children appear
happy to be living with their grandparents. S.R. has stated that she wishes to be adopted by her
grandparents. Respondent continues to have contact with the children, and the court hoped that
would continue as long as it is in the children’s best interests. All of the children’s needs are being
met by the grandparents who are willing and able to adopt. The court’s decision was issued in a
written order on April 19, 2022. This appeal followed. The trial court appointed counsel to
represent respondent on appeal. As previously noted, appellate counsel has to file a motion to
withdraw in accordance with Anders, 386 U.S. 738.
¶ 38 II. ANALYSIS
- 18 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
¶ 39 Appellate counsel identifies the following potential challenges to the unfitness finding in
his motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders—a contention that the trial court may have considered
evidence outside of the relevant nine-month time period when finding respondent unfit for failing
to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis of S.W.’s removal; a
challenge to the finding that respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions
which were the basis for S.W.’s removal; and a challenge to the finding that she failed to maintain
a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to S.W.’s welfare.
¶ 40 The Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2020)) sets forth a two-stage
process for the involuntary termination of parental rights. In re Keyon R., 2017 IL App (2d)
160657, ¶ 16. Initially, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that
the parent is unfit under any single ground set forth in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS
50/1(D) (West 2020)). See 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2), (4) (West 2020); In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329, 337
(2010). If the trial court finds the parent unfit, the State must then show by a preponderance of the
evidence that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests. See 705 ILCS 405/2-
29(2) (West 2020); In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 367 (2004). On appeal, this court will not disturb
a trial court’s finding as to parental unfitness or a child’s best interests unless it is against the
manifest weight of the evidence. In re N.B., 2019 IL App (2d) 180797, ¶¶ 30, 43. A 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.” Keyon R., 2017 IL App (2d)
160657, ¶ 16.
¶ 41 Furthermore, it is well settled that “[W]hen parental rights are terminated based upon clear
and convincing evidence of a single ground of unfitness, the reviewing court need not consider
additional grounds for unfitness cited by the trial court.” In re Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d 883,
- 19 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
891 (2004) (citing In re D.D., 196 Ill. 2d 405, 433 (2001)). Hence, if we affirm the trial court’s
decision on one ground, we need not consider the court’s decision on the other grounds. After
careful review, we agree that there would be no arguable merit to a challenge to the court’s finding
of unfitness because, at a minimum, the court’s finding that respondent failed to make reasonable
progress toward reunification during the designated nine-month period is not contrary to the
manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 42 The question of reasonable progress is an objective one, which requires the trial court to
consider whether a parent’s actions during a given nine-month period would support the court’s
decision to return the child home in the near future. In re Phoenix F., 2016 IL App (2d) 150431,
¶ 7. The court will consider the parent’s compliance with the service plans and the court’s
directives. In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 216-17 (2001). For there to be reasonable progress, there
must be, at a minimum, some measurable or demonstrable movement toward the goal of
reunification. In re J.O., 2021 IL App (3d) 210248, ¶57.
¶ 43 The record shows that respondent made no measurable movement toward the goal of
reunification between November 17, 2020, and August 17, 2021, due to her own persistent lack of
cooperation and follow-up with YSB. After her integrated assessment in June 2020, respondent
was recommended to receive mental-health and substance-abuse assessments and follow through
with all recommended services. She was also recommended to complete a parenting program and
participate in random drug tests. She was also required to find stable housing and participate in
consistent visitation with her children. At the first permanency review hearing on April 20, 2021,
the court found that respondent had done “very little, if anything” regarding services.
Unfortunately, this remained the status of her efforts and progress throughout the relevant nine-
month timeframe.
- 20 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
¶ 44 Milakis was the social worker assigned to this case during the relevant time period. She
testified that respondent was often not cooperative and communication with her was very
inconsistent. Respondent would often not answer her phone or return calls. In fact, Milakis did
not hear from respondent between October 2020 (when she saw her at a supervised visit with the
children) and January or February 2021 (when respondent informed Milakis that she had moved
to Chicago). After being evicted from her apartment in Carpentersville, respondent moved to
Chicago in January 2021, where she stayed in various hotels and with several different family
members. Respondent refused to provide her address in Chicago to Milakis. At this time, Milakis
also learned that respondent had not actually completed any services at Ecker Center, despite
respondent’s claims to the contrary. Upon learning this, Milakis made efforts to arrange services
for respondent in Chicago at UIC. Respondent told Milakis that she would follow up at UIC, but
she never did. When Milakis learned that respondent moved back to Carpentersville in the spring
of 2021, Milakis made another referral for respondent to begin services at Braden Center which
was ultimately approved in August 2021.
¶ 45 Furthermore, respondent did not complete a substance-abuse assessment or otherwise
engage in substance-abuse services. She was required to comply with random drug tests, but
Milakis stated that respondent would not provide her address when she lived in Chicago so Milakis
could make those arrangements and provide proper notice. Respondent admitted to failing
numerous drug tests and acknowledged that she continued to smoke marijuana multiple times a
week. Milakis encouraged respondent to obtain a medical marijuana card if her use of the
substance was for medical purposes as she claimed, but respondent failed to do so.
¶ 46 Respondent’s efforts regarding visitation further demonstrate no measurable movement
toward the goal of reunification. Because the children were in the care of their maternal
- 21 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
grandparents, respondent could see them whenever she wished. However, after she decided to
move to Chicago, visitation became very inconsistent. Respondent would speak to the children on
the phone weekly and stop by to see them once a month. Not wanting lack of transportation to be
an impediment to visitation, Milakis testified that YSB offered to take the children to Chicago to
see respondent, but she did not accept this assistance. During home visits, the children informed
Milakis that they “barely talk” to respondent and respondent did not spend much time with them.
Milakis testified that because visitation was inconsistent, no supervised visits occurred during
approximately the last five months of the relevant time period (after April 2021) to enable YSB to
observe respondent with the children.
¶ 47 The record reveals that respondent had many opportunities to engage in services to make
progress towards reunification and to demonstrate a desire to reunite with S.R. by cooperating with
YSB, engaging in services, and consistently participating in visitation. However, she failed to do
so at every turn. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court’s finding of unfitness due to
respondent’s failure to make reasonable progress towards the goal of reunification was not contrary
to the manifest weight of the evidence; as such, there is no arguable merit to a challenge to this
finding. Because any one ground for unfitness, properly proved, is sufficient to affirm (In re Janine
M.A., 342 Ill. App. 3d 1041, 1049 (2003)), we need not address appellate counsel’s other potential
issues regarding the unfitness finding.
¶ 48 Finally, we note that appellate counsel stated in his memorandum in support of his motion
to withdraw that he considered the trial court’s decision that it was in S.R.’s best interests that
respondent’s parental rights be terminated; however, he concluded that he could not make a good-
faith argument that this decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. After reviewing
- 22 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220156-U
the record, we agree. As such, the trial court’s decision to terminate respondent’s parental rights
is affirmed.
¶ 49 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 50 After examining the record, the motion to withdraw, and the supporting memorandum of
law, we agree with appellate counsel that respondent’s appeal presents no issues of arguable merit.
Thus, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane
County.
¶ 51 Affirmed.
- 23 -