Background
The State filed a juvenile petition alleging that Joshua K. physically abused his eight-year-old son, K.K., including by biting his finger, strangling him, and striking him with a belt and shoe. Medical and school reports documented marks and bruises consistent with physical abuse. In July 2023, Joshua stipulated that K.K. was neglected because his environment was injurious to his welfare, and the trial court made K.K. a ward of the court.
The State later sought termination of Joshua’s parental rights. Evidence showed that he did not complete required domestic-violence, substance-abuse, parenting, or mental-health services during the relevant nine-month periods, attended visits inconsistently, and was convicted of offenses including aggravated battery of a child and domestic battery. The trial court found him unfit on four grounds. At the best-interests stage, evidence showed that K.K. was flourishing in his aunt’s stable home, wanted to remain there, feared his father, and needed permanence and consistency. The court terminated Joshua’s parental rights and appointed the DCFS guardianship administrator as K.K.’s guardian with authority to consent to adoption.
The Court’s Holding
Joshua’s appointed appellate counsel moved to withdraw under the procedure applicable to appeals presenting no nonfrivolous issue. After independently reviewing the record, the appellate court agreed that there was no arguable basis to challenge either the unfitness finding or the best-interests determination, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Addressing reasonable progress, the court held that the unfitness finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because Joshua completed none of the required services during either nine-month period alleged in the termination motion. Classes he began after entering prison in May 2025 could not establish progress during periods that had already ended. The best-interests ruling was likewise supported by evidence that K.K. was bonded with his aunt, was stable and flourishing in her care, feared Joshua, and did not want contact with him. The affirmance left intact both the termination of Joshua’s parental rights and the appointment of the DCFS guardianship administrator with authority to consent to adoption; the appellate court did not order K.K.’s adoption by his aunt.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s reasonable progress is evaluated objectively and, for the statutory ground at issue, only evidence from the nine-month periods identified in the termination motion may be considered.
- Joshua’s failure to participate in any required services during the relevant periods supplied a sufficient ground for the unfitness finding, regardless of the trial court’s other findings.
- The evidence supported termination as serving K.K.’s best interests because his current placement provided safety, stability, attachment, and the prospect of permanence, while contact with his father was considered detrimental to his mental health.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the limited scope of a reasonable-progress inquiry: rehabilitative efforts begun after the alleged statutory periods cannot cure a lack of progress within those periods. It also shows that once unfitness is established, the inquiry shifts from preserving the parent-child relationship to the child’s need for safety, stability, and permanence.
The decision is an unpublished Rule 23 order and is not precedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1).