Background
A.C. was born January 25, 2023, and placed in protective custody five days later due to concerns arising from her mother Brianna C.’s earlier involvement with the Department of Children and Family Services regarding two older children. Brianna’s parenting capacity was questioned in light of her cognitive and developmental delays, depression, and bipolar disorder. The trial court found A.C. neglected and abused due to an injurious environment and substantial risk of physical injury, citing Brianna’s false claim that she was A.C.’s surrogate and her unresolved service needs.
A.C. was placed with non-relative foster parents Jennifer and Eric, in whose home she remained and thrived. The initial permanency goal was return home within twelve months, but in February 2025, the court changed the goal to substitute care pending termination determination. In March 2025, the State filed a petition to terminate Brianna’s parental rights based on her failure to make reasonable efforts and progress toward reunification during three statutory nine-month periods.
At the fitness hearing, evidence showed Brianna attended only 30–40% of visits from April to November 2024, failed to complete required parenting programs despite opportunities, received sparse and inconsistent therapy, and never progressed to unsupervised visitation. Her explanations for extended periods of non-visitation—illness or transportation issues—were found insufficient to justify months-long gaps in contact with A.C.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding of parental unfitness under Illinois law (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)), which requires clear and convincing evidence that a parent failed to make reasonable progress toward reunification. The court held that “reasonable progress” requires objective, measurable movement toward reunification and reasonably demonstrates that the child can be returned to parental custody in the near future. The trial court properly found that although Brianna made reasonable progress during the first nine-month period (June 27, 2023 to March 27, 2024), she failed to do so during the subsequent two periods through April 2025.
The court rejected Brianna’s argument that recommended services were unavailable to her, finding that all services—therapy, parenting classes, disability services—were offered and accessible. The trial court did not rely on hearsay psychological evaluations but rather on live testimony and documented service records showing Brianna’s inconsistent engagement, sparse therapy attendance, and declining visit participation. The court determined that her parenting capacity remained insufficient even after two-and-a-half years of involvement with the child welfare system.
On the best interest analysis, the court held that termination rather than guardianship served A.C.’s best interest because A.C. has lived with her foster parents since five days old, is strongly bonded to them, is thriving in their stable and safe home, and the foster parents are committed to maintaining her relationships with her biological siblings and mother. The court rejected the argument that the KIND Act’s removal of a statutory preference for adoption over guardianship mandated guardianship, holding that both options stand on equal footing and the trial court properly exercised discretion in choosing termination.
Key Takeaways
- Parental unfitness under the “reasonable progress” standard requires demonstrable, measurable movement toward reunification, not mere participation in services; inconsistent engagement and declining visitation can defeat reasonable progress even where all services are available.
- A parent’s love and interest in the child must yield to the child’s interest in stability and permanence; a child thriving in a long-term foster placement securely bonded to caregivers weighs heavily against reunification.
- The KIND Act places guardianship and termination of parental rights on equal footing, eliminating a statutory preference for adoption, but courts retain discretion to choose termination when best interest analysis supports it.
- Certified records prepared by agencies with family preservation in mind (not in anticipation of litigation) are admissible in fitness hearings and do not constitute inadmissible hearsay.
Why It Matters
This case clarifies Illinois’s “reasonable progress” standard in parental rights termination cases, requiring objective, demonstrable advancement toward reunification rather than mere service participation. Courts must evaluate the totality of parental conduct—visit attendance, service engagement consistency, and progress on identified deficits—over statutory periods. The decision underscores that extended gaps in visitation and sporadic therapy engagement, even when attributable to illness, can defeat reasonable progress claims, particularly where the parent never achieves unsupervised parenting time.
The opinion also addresses post-KIND Act jurisprudence, clarifying that while the recent legislation removed the statutory preference for termination over guardianship, courts may still choose termination over guardianship when best interest analysis—including the child’s strong bond to current caregivers, stability of placement, and the duration of the child’s life spent in foster care—supports permanency through adoption. This gives trial courts meaningful flexibility in selecting permanency arrangements while safeguarding children’s interests in stable family homes.