Background
The State sought adjudication of Nathan S. and Sofia S. as neglected minors after a domestic-violence incident occurred in their presence. Their mother, Mikayla S., prevented a family member from calling 911 during the incident. Both parents admitted the neglect allegations, and the circuit court placed the children in the custody and guardianship of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.
DCFS required Mother to address mental health, domestic violence, parenting, housing, employment, and initially substance-abuse concerns. Although she completed a parenting course, attended visitation, and engaged intermittently in other services, she remained inconsistent in counseling and did not obtain safe housing. The parents’ home had structural problems, inadequate heat, no running water, clutter, dirt, and animal waste. Because the unsafe housing also prevented Mother from completing hands-on parenting services, the circuit court found her unfit for failing to make reasonable progress during the two nine-month periods alleged by the State. After a best-interests hearing, it terminated her parental rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court’s finding of parental unfitness based on Mother’s failure to make reasonable progress was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Reasonable progress is measured objectively through compliance with service plans and court directives in light of both the original reasons for removal and later-discovered conditions preventing reunification.
Mother’s explanations for the housing problem—including poverty, difficulty securing repairs, a family member’s illness, and delays involving documentation—did not alter that objective inquiry. The record showed that the parents had long known the home was unsafe, had not effectively used housing assistance, and remained far from reunification. Mother’s more recent engagement in certain services could not overcome approximately a year of relative inaction. Because one proven statutory ground was sufficient to establish unfitness, the appellate court did not decide whether the separate failure-to-protect ground independently supported the judgment, though it noted that the evidence would support either ground.
Key Takeaways
- Reasonable progress toward reunification is judged objectively, so personal circumstances impeding compliance do not excuse a lack of progress.
- Courts may consider conditions discovered after removal, including unsafe housing, when those conditions independently prevent the children’s return.
- Completion of some services does not establish reasonable progress when substantial service-plan obligations remain unmet and reunification is not reasonably near.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Illinois courts evaluate reasonable progress by asking whether a parent has moved measurably closer to the child’s return, not merely whether the parent participated in selected services. A later-emerging barrier such as unsafe housing can sustain an unfitness finding when it remains unresolved and prevents reunification.
The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).