NOTICE 2024 IL App (4th) 240549-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NOS. 4-24-0549, 4-24-0550 cons. August 13, 2024 not precedent except in the Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
In re Z.T. and Zo. T., Minors ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Macoupin County Petitioner-Appellee, ) Nos. 18JA41 v. ) 19JA47 Zachary T., ) Respondent-Appellant). ) Honorable ) Joshua A. Meyer, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Doherty and DeArmond concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment terminating respondent’s parental rights, concluding the court’s fitness and best interest determinations were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 In September 2023, the State filed motions to terminate the parental rights of
respondent, Zachary T., as to his two minor children, Z.T. (born June 2011) and Zo. T. (born
January 2019). Following fitness and best interest hearings, the trial court granted the State’s
motions and terminated respondent’s parental rights. Respondent appeals, arguing the court’s
findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On August 6, 2018, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship as to Z.T.
(Macoupin County case No. 18-JA-41), alleging he was neglected in that his environment was injurious to his welfare (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2018)). The petition alleged Z.T. resided
with his mother, Terri B., whose drug use rendered his environment unsafe. The trial court
found probable cause for the petition and an immediate and urgent necessity existed to remove
Z.T. from the home. The court granted temporary custody to the Illinois Department of Children
and Family Services (DCFS).
¶5 On November 8, 2018, the trial court held an adjudicatory hearing and found Z.T.
was neglected by Terri. Respondent stipulated and agreed to the adjudicatory order.
¶6 On December 12, 2018, the trial court held a dispositional hearing. The court found
respondent unable to care for Z.T., made Z.T. a ward of the court, granted custody and
guardianship to DCFS, and set a permanency goal of return home within 12 months.
¶7 On August 27, 2019, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship as to
Zo. T. (Macoupin County case No. 19-JA-47), alleging she was neglected in that her environment
was injurious to her welfare (id.). The State alleged, inter alia, Zo. T.’s mother, Flora G., used
illegal drugs and failed to obtain treatment and respondent failed to correct the conditions that
brought Z.T. into care. The trial court entered an order finding probable cause for the petition and
an immediate and urgent necessity to remove Zo. T. existed and granted DCFS temporary custody.
¶8 On January 29, 2020, the trial court held an adjudicatory hearing. The court found
Zo. T. was neglected in that her environment was injurious to her welfare. Thereafter, there were
numerous delays in the remainder of the proceedings for various reasons, including COVID-19
and changes of counsel.
¶9 On December 20, 2021, the trial court held a dispositional hearing. The court found
respondent was unable and unwilling to care for Zo. T., made her a ward of the court, granted
DCFS custody and guardianship, and set a permanency goal of return home within 12 months.
-2- ¶ 10 On July 6, 2023, the trial court held a joint permanency review hearing and changed
the permanency goal to substitute care pending termination of parental rights, finding respondent
had not made reasonable progress, substantial progress, or reasonable efforts toward returning Z.T.
and Zo. T. home. The court’s order noted respondent completed some of the service plan, but he
was resistant to drug tests and continued to have substance abuse issues.
¶ 11 On September 14, 2023, the State filed motions to terminate respondent’s parental
rights as to Z.T. and Zo. T. The State alleged respondent was unfit as he failed to make reasonable
progress toward the return home of the minors during the nine-month period of October 6, 2022,
through July 6, 2023, following an adjudication of neglect (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022)).
¶ 12 A. Fitness Determination
¶ 13 On November 13, 2023, the trial court held a fitness hearing. Respondent testified
his methamphetamine use worsened when his children were taken away. He was in prison for
possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of these cases, had since been released from
prison, and was on parole for one more month. During the nine-month period (October 6, 2022,
through July 6, 2023), he had a service plan which required substance abuse treatment. In February
2023, a hair follicle test was positive for methamphetamine, and respondent agreed he used
methamphetamine before the test. However, at that time, he lied to caseworkers about his drug
use. In May 2023, he admitted to his caseworker he was still using methamphetamine and agreed
it would have been a bad situation if his children were returned to him at that time. Respondent
was working on his addiction but missed drug tests due to his work schedule. If he had taken the
drug tests when requested, a couple of them would have been positive. He completed the other
items required in the service plan (mental health counseling, domestic violence counseling, and
parenting classes), except for drug counseling, which he stated was a never-ending process. He
-3- had never been convicted of selling drugs and never used drugs in the presence of his children. He
previously visited his children for two hours once a week, but it was changed to two hours once a
month after the positive hair follicle test. The new visitation schedule frustrated him because he
believed he was putting in hard work toward returning his children home.
¶ 14 Respondent worked over 40 hours a week installing sod. He had a driver’s license
and owned a three-bedroom home in Virden, Illinois. The minors visited respondent at his home.
Respondent was willing to move to Auburn, Illinois, to keep Z.T. in the same school district. He
stated Zo. T. has autism and he attended a few counseling sessions for her in Edwardsville, Illinois,
but the distance made it difficult to attend with his work schedule. He asked about transferring the
services closer but was informed the services were not available in the area. He missed a visit when
he broke his jaw and noted the agency canceled visits several times.
¶ 15 Kiara Simmons, a caseworker with Rutledge Youth Foundation (Rutledge),
testified Zo. T. had been on her caseload since 2021. Respondent denied he had a drug issue until
the February 2023 hair follicle test and refused any further hair follicle testing. In May 2023, he
admitted he was still using methamphetamine. Respondent completed domestic violence
counseling and a mental health assessment. He complied with mental health treatment up to May
2023, but there were some complications when the counselor he bonded with no longer worked at
the facility. Respondent’s visits with the minors were mostly appropriate, but respondent would
sometimes struggle parenting both minors and requested to separate the visits. Respondent
canceled a visit because one of his tenants was upset with him and punched him in the jaw.
Simmons opined respondent’s biggest issue was substance abuse and he failed to successfully
complete drug treatment during the relevant period. She agreed there was no evidence respondent’s
-4- drug use impaired his ability to parent the minors; however, she claimed it was not safe to return
minors to a parent who was actively using methamphetamine.
¶ 16 Lisa Hallmark, a caseworker for Rutledge, testified she was Z.T.’s caseworker.
Although Z.T. was on her caseload, Simmons directed the majority of services respondent needed
to complete with respect to both children. Respondent had the same service plan for each child.
¶ 17 Sarah Usery, a licensed clinical social worker, testified about the parenting capacity
assessment she performed on respondent while he visited Zo. T. in February 2023, which was
admitted into evidence. Respondent informed Usery he struggled with methamphetamine and used
it as recently as December 2022. Usery believed respondent had the capacity and willingness to
care for the safety of his children based on his awareness Zo. T. has some issues, support of
services being offered, willingness to follow through with recommendations, and attachment to
Zo. T. Usery observed respondent was sweet and attentive with Zo. T, who had issues during the
visit, and respondent did not get upset or frustrated. She did not have any evidence respondent
used methamphetamine during the times she visited with him but acknowledged it was commonly
accepted that drugs interfere with the ability to parent. Usery recommended the trial court maintain
respondent’s parental rights. On cross-examination, it appeared Usery was unaware of
respondent’s drug use at the time of her assessment and stated if respondent was actively using
drugs and not in treatment, she would not support reunification.
¶ 18 Bailey Casteneda, a parent advocate working for Primed for Life, testified
respondent first came to her office in August 2022. When respondent’s visitation schedule was
changed following the positive hair follicle test in February 2023, she filed an appeal with DCFS
to increase his visitation. Respondent informed her that he relapsed, and she contacted his
treatment provider to confirm they were working on relapse intervention. She recommended
-5- respondent seek an inpatient treatment program, which he did not initiate. Casteneda opined
respondent’s parental rights should not be terminated because the agency and his caseworkers were
not supporting him sufficiently. Specifically, she noted a two-hour travel time to Zo. T.’s
appointments and the agency’s canceled visitations. She recalled, a few months ago, a caseworker
canceled visitation after respondent prepared to have his children for Easter, where he had family
members present, arranged for background checks, had presents for the children, and planned an
Easter egg hunt. She also did not believe respondent’s visitation should have been reduced after
the positive hair follicle test because he did not pose an immediate risk of harm to the children.
She opined, even considering his current drug use, his visitation should have been increased, as
her observations supported he did really well with his children. However, she ultimately agreed
respondent needed to be sober, but she did not believe he was given the chance to succeed that he
deserved.
¶ 19 Shirley L., respondent’s grandmother, testified she fostered Z.T. at the beginning
of his case. DCFS terminated the arrangement because it received a report that Shirley allowed
Z.T. to be with respondent outside of approved visitation; however, Shirley said this was not true.
If respondent regained custody of his children, she would assist him with them, as she was retired.
Respondent’s sister, who worked at a daycare, would also be able to assist. Shirley never saw
respondent under the influence of drugs and thought respondent had a very good relationship with
his children. She typically saw respondent two times a week. She was unaware respondent had a
drug problem, and whether he did would not change her opinion.
¶ 20 The State asked the trial court to terminate respondent’s parental rights. It argued
respondent was dishonest with his caseworkers, avoided drug tests, and did not apply the tools
provided to him in treatment. Although respondent completed services, he did so while being
-6- dishonest about his drug addiction. Respondent argued he never used methamphetamine while in
the presence of the children, there was no issue of domestic violence, he was a good parent, he
completed parenting classes, and he was certified to be a good parent pursuant to the parenting
capacity assessment. In rebuttal, the State argued the service plan required respondent to abstain
from drug use, be honest, and perform drug tests, which he did not do. The State emphasized
respondent failed to make progress toward the reunification goal during the relevant nine-month
period due to his persistent methamphetamine use.
¶ 21 On November 17, 2023, the trial court issued its written decision. The court found
respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of his children during the
nine-month period. The court recognized respondent made progress on the service plan but noted
little progress was made regarding his drug addiction. None of the witnesses provided evidence
the children could have been returned during the nine-month period or could be returned in the
near future. The court sympathized with respondent and explained drug addiction can take a long
time to remedy, but the court was not required to wait until he made reasonable progress.
¶ 22 B. Best Interest Determination
¶ 23 On March 7, 2024, the matter proceeded to a best interest hearing. Kathy M., Z.T.’s
foster mother, testified that Z.T. was thriving in his current placement and he did not want to leave.
She involved respondent in Z.T.’s life outside of scheduled visitation (sports, camping, and
birthdays) and was not going to stop including respondent.
¶ 24 Additionally, Simmons, the caseworker with Rutledge, testified about each child.
With regards to Z.T., Simmons explained Z.T. had been in foster care since 2018 and has been in
his current placement with Kathy M. since November 2020. Simmons visited Z.T. at his current
placement and observed he had a good relationship with Kathy and her husband. Z.T. referred to
-7- Kathy as “mom or nanna” and his foster father as “dad.” The foster parents had an older daughter
in her twenties who also had a good relationship with Z.T. He was well taken care of and had his
own room, bed, clothing, TV, and video games. Z.T. was doing well in school and was involved
with sports. Simmons stated respondent still visited Z.T. and it was clear respondent loved Z.T.
They are very close and have a good relationship. Simmons spoke with Z.T. regarding his wishes,
and he wished to stay in his current placement even though he loved respondent. Considering her
interactions with Z.T., his wishes, and his bonds, Simmons recommended Z.T. stay in his current
placement and be adopted by his foster parents, who expressed an interest in adopting him.
¶ 25 Simmons also testified regarding Zo. T. and her current placement. Zo. T. was five
years old at the time of the hearing and had been in care since 2019. She was placed with Julie B.,
who she refers to as “mom.” Zo. T. and Julie were involved in the community and actively bonded
outside of the home with various activities. Zo. T. had her own bedroom, with a bed and stuffed
animals. No one else resided in the home other than Zo. T. and Julie. Zo. T. went to daycare and
preschool and was doing well. Zo. T. attended speech, language, and occupational therapy. Julie
took her to the appointments, and respondent had not attended the appointments in months. Julie
also attended parental behavioral training to help her care appropriately for Zo. T. due to her autism
diagnosis. Respondent and Zo. T. had built a positive relationship, and Zo. T. really enjoyed seeing
her father. Zo. T. was not old enough to articulate her goals or preferences, but Simmons
recommended Zo. T. stay in her current placement and be adopted. She explained Zo. T. was taken
care of in her current placement and she was sensitive to change.
¶ 26 Simmons testified respondent’s visits with the minors occurred in respondent’s
home and were supervised. The minors were accustomed to the home, and it did not present any
-8- dangers. The minors enjoyed the visits and had a strong bond with respondent. During the visits,
respondent was appropriate, and she had no safety concerns with the environment.
¶ 27 Further, Simmons stated neither foster parent expressed an intention to stop visits
with respondent. On cross-examination, she stated it could be in the best interest of the minors to
maintain their relationship with respondent; however, she was concerned about respondent’s
ability to maintain sobriety. Since the last court date, respondent had reenrolled in drug classes but
had not completed a random drug screen.
¶ 28 Respondent testified he was 35 years old and was still working as a sod installer.
He was currently laid off as the work was seasonal. He had three children, and his oldest child was
not in the juvenile court system and resided with his mother. Zo. T. had autism, which caused her
to be sensitive to certain things. She used to have problems eating, and he would have to make
sure she chewed her food sufficiently before swallowing. However, she was growing out of it.
Respondent had only been to a couple of trainings to handle Zo. T.’s autism due to the distance,
and he was no longer being notified of them. When the children visited with him once a month,
his grandparents and his older child sometimes attended. The children call him “dad” and had
never been injured during visits, aside from falling down and hurting a knee. When the children
visited him, they were excited to see him, and when the visits were over, Zo. T. was not ready to
go home. Respondent thought Z.T. wanted to come home. He had no concerns that his children
were not being cared for in their respective foster homes. He asked the trial court to maintain his
parental rights because if his children could no longer see him, he thought it would have a negative
impact. He wanted to maintain the relationship with his children and increase visitation as he
continued to work toward returning them to his care. Respondent was currently in a weekly drug
-9- class and admitted he relapsed in the recent past. He stated it had been a few months since he last
used methamphetamine, but it would still probably show up on a hair follicle test.
¶ 29 The State argued the best interest factors favored terminating respondent’s parental
rights. Respondent asked the trial court to maintain his parental rights because the status quo was
working for them. The guardian ad litem (GAL) opined respondent’s parental rights should be
terminated for permanency and based on his visits with Z.T. and observations, Z.T. did not trust
respondent sufficiently to live in respondent’s household.
¶ 30 On March 8, 2024, the trial court issued its written decision terminating
respondent’s parental rights. The court found respondent had consistent and appropriate visits and
loved his children, but he still struggled with substance abuse and admitted he would test positive
for methamphetamine if he took a test at the last hearing. The court agreed ending visits would
have a negative effect to a certain extent, but all other statutory factors favored terminating
respondent’s parental rights. The court also terminated Terri’s parental rights with respect to Z.T.,
and Flora surrendered her parental rights with respect to Zo. T.
¶ 31 This consolidated appeal followed. (We note neither Terri nor Flora are parties to
this appeal.)
¶ 32 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 33 On appeal, respondent argues the trial court’s fitness and best interest
determinations are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State posits the court’s
determinations were proper. We address each determination in turn.
¶ 34 The termination of parental rights is a two-step process governed by the Juvenile
Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2022)) and the Adoption
Act (750 ILCS 50/0.01 et seq. (West 2022)). In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198, 210 (2002). The State
- 10 - must first prove by clear and convincing evidence the parent is “unfit” under any one of the several
grounds provided in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2022)). In re D.T.,
212 Ill. 2d 347, 352-53 (2004). If the court makes a finding of unfitness, then the State must prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that the termination of parental rights serves the best interest
of the child. In re D.D., 2022 IL App (4th) 220257, ¶ 27. On review, we determine whether these
findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence (In re J.H., 2020 IL App (4th) 200150,
¶¶ 68, 85), which occurs where the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or if it is unreasonable,
arbitrary, or not based on the evidence. In re Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d 883, 890 (2004).
¶ 35 A. Fitness Finding
¶ 36 In this case, the trial court found respondent was unfit in that he failed to make
reasonable progress toward the return of the children within nine months following the
adjudication of neglect, namely October 6, 2022, through July 6, 2023. See 750 ILCS
50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022). Failure to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child
includes the parent’s failure to substantially fulfill his or her obligations under the service plan and
correct the conditions that brought the minor into care. Id. The benchmark for measuring a parent’s
progress toward the return of the child is his “compliance with the service plans and the court’s
directives, in light of the condition which gave rise to the removal of the child, and in light of other
conditions which later become known and which would prevent the court from returning custody
of the child to the parent.” (Emphasis added). In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 216-17 (2001).
“Reasonable progress” is an objective standard and exists when the court can conclude the parent’s
progress sufficiently demonstrates the child will be able to be returned to parental custody in the
near future because, at that point, the parent will have fully complied with the directives to regain
- 11 - custody of the child. In re L.L.S., 218 Ill. App. 3d 444, 461 (1991). Nonetheless, the overall focus
remains on the fitness of the parent in relation to the needs of the child. C.N., 196 Ill. 2d at 216.
¶ 37 Here, the children were removed from respondent’s care where their environment
was injurious to their welfare. Z.T. was in the juvenile court system for over five years, while
Zo. T. was in the juvenile court system for over four years. Respondent’s service plan required
him to complete services for domestic violence, mental health, and substance abuse. While he
made some progress with the service plan in that he completed mental health and domestic
violence services, he did not make progress with his substance abuse. His use of methamphetamine
continued, and although it was not the initial reason for the children being brought into care, it was
a condition which later became known and prevented the trial court from returning custody of the
children to respondent. See id. at 216-17. In February 2023, respondent’s hair follicle test was
positive for methamphetamine, and respondent did not undergo any further testing during the
relevant period. Respondent claimed he missed the drug screens because of his work schedule but
admitted a couple of the tests would have been positive for methamphetamine. Respondent
testified he was using methamphetamine through May 2023 and agreed it would have been a bad
situation if his children were returned to him at that time. Respondent was also initially dishonest
regarding his relapse and only later admitted he was struggling with his addiction. Casteneda, his
parent advocate, recommended he seek inpatient treatment to address his addiction, but he failed
to do so.
¶ 38 Respondent nonetheless argues he was fit to parent his children because the
evidence demonstrated he was able to meet minimal parenting standards. Specifically, he points
to the lack of evidence he ever used drugs around his children, Simmons’s testimony his drug use
did not affect his ability to parent, Casteneda’s testimony as to his fitness as a parent, and Usery’s
- 12 - parenting capacity assessment. The State argues the trial court’s finding of unfitness was proper
where respondent’s drug addiction persisted. We agree with the State.
¶ 39 As the State points out, although Usery opined respondent’s parental rights should
not be terminated, she was unaware respondent was missing drug tests or that he was using
methamphetamine before and after she completed the parenting capacity assessment. Usery
clarified she would not support reunification while respondent was still actively using drugs.
Further, although Simmons stated respondent’s use of methamphetamine did not affect his ability
to parent, she testified it was not safe to return a minor to a parent who was actively using
methamphetamine. The same applies to Casteneda’s testimony, where she opined respondent was
a great parent and his visitation time should have been increased instead of decreased, but she
agreed respondent needed to be sober. Respondent failed to cite any persuasive authority to support
his position he is fit because, although he was using methamphetamine again in violation of the
service plan and his substance abuse recovery, he did not use the drug in the presence of his
children.
¶ 40 After careful consideration, we conclude the children’s environment with
respondent would still be injurious to their welfare. The evidence submitted failed to demonstrate
the children could be returned to respondent’s care in the near future. Therefore, we cannot say the
trial court’s finding of unfitness was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 41 B. Best Interest Finding
¶ 42 After the trial court finds a parent unfit, the court considers whether it is in the
child’s best interest to terminate the parent’s parental rights. In re Jay. H., 395 Ill. App. 3d 1063,
1071 (2009). “Courts will not lightly terminate parental rights because of the fundamental
importance inherent in those rights.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re M.C., 2018 IL App
- 13 - (4th) 180144, ¶ 34. At this stage, the focus shifts to the child, and “the parent’s interest in
maintaining the parent-child relationship must yield to the child’s interest in a stable, loving home
life.” D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 364. The court considers the following factors within the context of the
child’s age and developmental needs: (1) the child’s physical safety and welfare, including food,
shelter, health, and clothing; (2) the development of the child’s identity; (3) the child’s background
and ties; (4) the child’s sense of attachments, including love, attachment, sense of being valued,
security, familiarity, and continuity of affection, and the least-disruptive placement alternative;
(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, including the need for stability and
continuity of relationships with parental figures, siblings, and other relatives; (8) the uniqueness
of every family and child; (9) the risks related to substitute care; and (10) the preferences of the
persons available to care for the child. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2022).
¶ 43 Respondent argues the trial court’s best interest decision was against the manifest
weight of the evidence because the children had a good long-term relationship with him and
severing that bond would negatively disrupt the children’s lives. He quotes In re M.F., 326 Ill.
App. 3d 1110, 1115 (2002), where the court stated, “A child’s best interests may be best served by
maintaining an already existing relationship with a parent.”
¶ 44 In M.F., the respondent-mother was found to be unfit to parent her children due to
her schizophrenia, which the court found would continue into the indefinite future and beyond a
reasonable period of time. Id. However, the court found terminating the respondent’s parental
rights would not be in the child’s best interest where the child (1) was already in the custody of
her father as the result of a divorce judgment, (2) visited the respondent regularly over the last
several years since the divorce and had an established relationship with her, and (3) would gain no
- 14 - more stability in her life, as there was no prospect of adoption as she lived with her father. Id. at
1117-18. Although M.F. and the case at bar are similar in that there is a strong child-parent bond,
the children in this case need permanence. Z.T.’s mother, Terri, had her parental rights terminated,
and Zo. T.’s mother, Flora, surrendered her parental rights. Respondent continued to struggle with
his methamphetamine addiction. Moreover, the bond between parent and child is only one of the
considerations when determining the child’s best interest. See In re Ca. B., 2019 IL App (1st)
181024, ¶ 31 (explaining, while the court must consider all factors set forth in section 1-3(4.05) of
the Juvenile Court Act, no single factor is dispositive); 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2022).
¶ 45 Here, the evidence demonstrated both children were thriving in their foster
placements. Z.T. had been in foster care since 2018 and his current placement since 2020. He had
a good relationship with his foster parents and referred to them as “mom” and “dad,” was well
cared for, and was bonded with his foster family. His needs were met, and he did well in school.
There was contradictory evidence as to Z.T.’s wishes, as Simmons and the GAL testified Z.T.
wanted to stay in his current placement, while respondent testified Z.T. wanted to return home.
¶ 46 Zo. T. had been in custody and in her current placement since 2019. She had a great
relationship with her foster mother, and she was well cared for. Zo. T. and her foster mother were
bonded and very active in the community, and she was doing well in school. Zo. T. was diagnosed
with autism and did not like change. Zo. T.’s foster mother took her to therapy appointments and
also took parental behavioral training to help her appropriately care for Zo. T. Simmons and the
GAL recommended respondent’s parental rights be terminated. Simmons expressed concern over
respondent’s ability to maintain sobriety and felt the children’s need for permanency was best met
by terminating respondent’s parental rights and allowing them to be adopted. Simmons also
testified neither set of foster parents expressed they would discontinue respondent’s visits with the
- 15 - children. Z.T.’s foster mother, Kathy, previously included respondent in Z.T.’s events (sports,
birthdays, and camping) outside of scheduled visitation.
¶ 47 The trial court found terminating respondent’s parental rights would have a
negative effect on the children to some degree, but all other factors favored the termination. We
agree. As the court noted, respondent testified at the fitness hearing he would still probably test
positive for methamphetamine. After the many years these cases remained pending, the children
needed permanency and were placed in suitable homes ideal for adoption. Considering the totality
of the evidence and the best interest factors, we cannot say the opposite conclusion is clearly
apparent or that the court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence.
Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d at 890. Thus, we find the court’s decision to terminate respondent’s
parental rights was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 48 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 49 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 50 Affirmed.
- 16 -