Background
The State alleged that E.R., born in May 2023, was neglected after her father, Elias R., was involved in a police standoff following an incident in which he held a gun to the mother’s head. The petition also alleged unresolved mental-health issues and a history of domestic violence. The trial court placed E.R. in DCFS custody in August 2023, adjudicated her neglected in October 2023, and made her a ward of the court.
In February 2026, the State sought to terminate Elias’s parental rights. At the fitness hearing, evidence showed that he had not maintained contact with the agency during an early review period, did not complete the required partner-abuse intervention evaluation, and was rated unsatisfactory on service-plan tasks. He was incarcerated, with a projected parole date in 2030. Although he testified that he completed parenting classes in prison, he had not supplied certificates and the trial court found the classes did not satisfy the key service-plan requirements.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw under Anders v. California and affirmed the termination judgment. Counsel had identified and assessed potential challenges to both the parental-unfitness finding and the best-interest determination, but concluded that neither presented an arguably meritorious appellate issue. Elias did not respond to counsel’s motion.
The court held that the evidence supported unfitness based on failure to make reasonable progress toward E.R.’s return during a statutory nine-month period. Elias did not substantially fulfill his service-plan obligations, particularly domestic-violence-related services, and incarceration did not toll the progress period. The court also found no arguable basis to challenge the best-interest finding: E.R. was bonded to foster parents she called “mom” and “dad,” had lived with them for most of her life, and they were prepared to adopt her while preserving her Hispanic identity.
Key Takeaways
- Failure to make reasonable progress during one alleged nine-month period can support a parental-unfitness finding.
- Incarceration does not suspend the statutory period for assessing reasonable progress.
- A child’s stable, bonded preadoptive placement and need for permanence supported termination here.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the limited scope of review in an Anders termination appeal when the record supports both statutory unfitness and the child’s best interests. It also underscores that participation in prison programming may be insufficient when it does not fulfill critical service-plan requirements or move reunification meaningfully closer.