Background
DCFS took B.C. into protective custody after her older half-sister alleged that B.C.’s father, James C., had sexually assaulted her. When informed of the allegation and James’s arrest, B.C.’s mother, Casey D., initially insisted he was innocent and refused to seek an order of protection. Later that day, Casey told the investigator that she would seek an order of protection, end her relationship with James, and do whatever DCFS believed was in her children’s best interests. The circuit court subsequently adjudicated B.C. neglected, made her a ward of the court, and placed guardianship with DCFS.
The State later sought termination of Casey’s parental rights, alleging that she failed to make reasonable progress toward B.C.’s return during the specified nine-month period and failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for B.C.’s welfare. Although Casey completed several assessments and services, submitted to drug screening, and consistently attended supervised visits, evidence showed that she repeatedly denied continuing contact with James. Surveillance images showed her or her car at his residence several times, including an image appearing to show them kissing. Casey ultimately admitted that she had repeatedly lied under oath and to the court.
The circuit court found Casey unfit on both alleged grounds and, after a separate best-interests hearing, terminated her parental rights. Casey appealed the unfitness findings but did not challenge the best-interests determination.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed based solely on the finding that Casey failed to make reasonable progress toward B.C.’s return under section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Illinois Adoption Act. Applying manifest-weight review, the court held that the circuit court reasonably could find that Casey’s pervasive dishonesty constituted noncooperation with DCFS and a failure to substantially fulfill her service-plan obligations. Completing assigned services was not enough when her lack of candor prevented genuine engagement with the psychological evaluation, parenting assessment, and caseworker.
The court emphasized that Casey’s continued relationship with James was not itself treated as automatically forbidden. The decisive problem was her false denial of that relationship, which prevented DCFS and service providers from assessing her judgment, loyalties, and ability to protect B.C. The court also rejected Casey’s fair-warning argument because she had been warned that noncooperation could lead to termination, and lying to DCFS qualified as noncooperation.
The court further rejected Casey’s arguments that the circuit court imposed an irrebuttable presumption that James would victimize B.C., required the State to prove that James endangered B.C. by clear and convincing evidence, or allowed an improper “sting operation” involving surveillance images. The governing burden was to prove a statutory ground of Casey’s unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, and the record supported that finding. Because one statutory ground was sufficient, the appellate court did not need to review the separate finding concerning interest, concern, or responsibility.
Key Takeaways
- A parent may fail to make reasonable progress despite completing many assigned services if the parent does not engage with those services candidly and in good faith.
- Substantial fulfillment of a service plan depends on the importance of unmet obligations, not merely the number of completed tasks.
- A parent’s dishonesty about a relationship relevant to child safety may constitute noncooperation with DCFS and support an unfitness finding.
Why It Matters
The order explains that reasonable progress is a practical, safety-focused inquiry rather than a checklist. Courts may consider whether a parent internalized and honestly participated in services and whether the child could be returned safely in the near future.
The decision also distinguishes between penalizing a parent merely for maintaining a relationship and considering dishonesty about that relationship. Filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23, the order is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).