Background
In September 2022, the State filed a petition alleging that Z.B.D. was a neglected minor due to exposure to abuse by his siblings while living with his mother, Tangula B., who permitted her paramour to live with the family and physically abuse the children. Demetrius W. (Father) was listed as the putative father. At the time, Father was incarcerated. The court placed the minor in temporary custody of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Father was released from custody in May 2023 and established paternity through DNA testing in January 2024.
Father has a significant criminal history including a 2020 conviction for criminal sexual assault of a 17-year-old (for which he pled guilty), and prior convictions for assault, weapons offenses, dangerous drug offenses, aggravated discharge of a firearm, and aggravated driving under the influence. Following his sexual assault conviction, Father was required to register as a sex offender, complete sex offender treatment, and undergo mental health counseling. A sex offender risk assessment found Father posed a moderate risk to reoffend, citing factors including possible mental illness, housing instability, sexual preoccupation, elevated psychopathy scores, impulsivity, and lack of responsibility for his actions.
In November 2024, the State filed a motion seeking a finding of unfitness and termination of Father’s parental rights based on three grounds: failure to maintain reasonable interest or responsibility as to the minor’s welfare, failure to make reasonable efforts to correct conditions requiring the minor’s removal, and failure to make reasonable progress toward reunification during the nine-month period from February 7, 2024 to November 7, 2024.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s finding of unfitness and termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. The court held that Father’s conduct during the relevant nine-month period demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with his service plan, particularly regarding sex offender treatment—a critical requirement given his conviction and assessed risk to reoffend. Father testified he would refuse sex offender counseling entirely and would only comply with court orders and services that he personally deemed reasonable.
The court found Father’s lack of reasonable progress was evident in multiple areas: he refused to sign a second consent form to access his sex offender assessment (claiming “strategic” reasons to delay until the assessment became outdated, despite knowing this would slow his case progress); he failed nine of eleven scheduled drug tests and did not comply despite them being court-ordered; he remained homeless throughout the period while focusing on personal lawsuits rather than seeking employment; and he was discharged from sex offender treatment for non-engagement and aggressive behavior toward providers. Although Father participated in some services (parenting classes, mental health counseling) and maintained regular visitation with the minor, these did not constitute reasonable progress toward reunification given his fundamental non-compliance with critical requirements and his stated refusal to engage in necessary treatment.
At the best-interest hearing, additional evidence emerged of Father’s arrests for methamphetamine possession, domestic battery, and firearm possession as a convicted felon with possible involvement in a death. The court determined termination was in the minor’s best interest, particularly given placement with maternal grandparents was available. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed both the unfitness finding and termination order.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s refusal to comply with court-ordered services—particularly sex offender treatment following a sexual assault conviction—can constitute clear and convincing evidence of unfitness and failure to make reasonable progress toward reunification.
- A parent’s subjective view that court orders are “arbitrary and fanciful” and therefore lacking “power or weight” does not excuse non-compliance and actually demonstrates unfitness.
- Strategic litigation tactics, such as deliberately delaying compliance with consent forms to render assessments “stale,” can actively harm a parent’s case and demonstrate lack of genuine commitment to reunification.
- Partial compliance with some services (counseling, parenting classes) does not constitute reasonable progress if the parent refuses critical services, remains unstably housed, and lacks employment.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that termination of parental rights requires more than a parent’s technical participation in some services; it demands genuine engagement and compliance with all material requirements of the service plan. Particularly in cases involving sex offenses, courts will scrutinize whether a parent acknowledges the underlying offense and actively engages in treatment, or alternatively maintains denial and refuses therapeutic intervention. A parent’s assertion that mandatory court orders lack validity because he disagrees with them directly undermines the reunification goal and supports an unfitness finding.
The case also illustrates that external obstacles (housing instability due to sex offender registry restrictions, communication difficulties with service providers) do not excuse non-compliance if the parent chooses to prioritize other matters (here, pro se litigation) over seeking employment and stable housing. Courts will examine both a parent’s objective circumstances and their choices about how to allocate their efforts and resources during the critical reunification period.