In re K.B.

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

2023 IL App (3d) 230326-U

Order filed November 13, 2023
____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2023

In re K.B., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of the 21st Judicial Circuit,
a Minor ) Kankakee County, Illinois,
)
(The People of the State of Illinois, )
)
Petitioner-Appellee, ) Appeal No. 3-23-0326
) Circuit No. 18-JA-30
v. )
)
Cortez B., ) Honorable
) JoAnn Imani Drew,
Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Peterson and Davenport concurred in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

¶1 Held: The circuit court did not err when it determined that (1) the respondent was unfit to
parent K.B. and (2) K.B.’s best interest favored terminating the respondent’s
parental rights.

¶2 The circuit court found the respondent, Cortez B., unfit to parent his child, K.B. (born July

2007). Following a best interest hearing, the court entered an order terminating the respondent’s

parental rights. The respondent appeals.
¶3 I. FACTS

¶4 In September 2018, the State filed a petition alleging 11-year-old K.B was neglected

because her environment was injurious to her welfare. The petition stated K.B.’s younger brother

was born prematurely with a controlled substance in his system and K.B. had been left alone at the

hospital. Both of K.B.’s parents were named as respondents, however, only her father, the

respondent, is a party to this appeal. At the shelter care hearing, the court found that probable cause

for the petition existed and there was an immediate and urgent necessity to remove K.B. from the

home. The court awarded temporary custody to the Department of Children and Family Services.

¶5 In November 2018, the court entered an adjudicatory order, wherein it found that K.B. was

abused or neglected in that she was in an environment injurious to her welfare (705 ILCS 405/2-

3(1)(b) (West 2018)). A report filed by the Lutheran Child and Family Services (LCFS) noted that

K.B.’s mother, prior to her discharge from the hospital after giving birth to K.B.’s brother, left the

hospital to obtain drugs and left K.B. unattended for several hours without arranging for proper

care or money for food. Regarding the respondent, an April 2018 investigation commenced when

K.B. reported she witnessed domestic violence between her father and his paramour, and she was

afraid to return to his care. The respondent was incarcerated, and K.B. went to live with her mother.

The respondent was referred for random drug drops and an individual assessment. Visitation was

recommended to be supervised one hour per week.

¶6 In December 2018, the court entered a dispositional order wherein it found the respondent

unable and unwilling due to the indicated finding of neglect from 2018 where K.B. witnessed

domestic violence. Further, the respondent needed to participate in the individual assessment and

complete services. The court adjudicated K.B. as neglected, made her a ward of the court, and set

a permanency goal of return home within 12 months.

2
¶7 Various reports and testimony throughout this case provided the following facts. The

respondent attended two visits with K.B. facilitated by a caseworker in November and December

2018. The respondent completed one drug drop that was positive for cannabis. He failed to

participate in services (which were recommended based on his history) despite the caseworker’s

repeated contact. In June 2019, the respondent was incarcerated for domestic battery. In 2019 and

2020, the court entered three permanency orders finding the respondent did not make reasonable

progress or efforts with his service plan.

¶8 In April and May 2021, while incarcerated, the respondent called the caseworker and asked

about visits with K.B. The caseworker approached K.B. with the request, and K.B. stated that she

was not sure she wanted that yet. K.B. had mental health struggles. At that time, in-person visits

were not allowed per COVID-19 restrictions, but phone visits were allowed. K.B. was “sort of”

open to phone visits, but the caseworker was never able to confirm if K.B. was on the call list and

who would be supervising the contact. The respondent did not have phone contact with K.B. and

only saw her in court. At court appearances, he would ask about K.B. and to see her. However,

while incarcerated, he never attempted to send K.B. letters or cards for special occasions. At a

permanency review hearing in September 2021, the court found that the respondent made

reasonable efforts but not progress.

¶9 The respondent was released from jail on November 3, 2021. His first contact with the

caseworker after his release was on November 17, 2021, at a court appearance. The caseworker

spoke with him and provided him with her contact card. She informed the respondent that he

needed to provide drug drops, enroll in a domestic violence program, and sign consents. The

respondent followed up with the caseworker two days later and scheduled an appointment for

December 1, 2021, to complete the integrated assessment, start services, and talk about visitation

3
 (K.B. told the caseworker she was ready to start phone calls with the respondent). The respondent

failed to attend the December 1, 2021, appointment. On December 10, 2021, the respondent

informed the caseworker that he missed the appointment because he had to work and his phone

had been shut off. The appointment was rescheduled for December 13, 2021, and the respondent

again failed to attend. After repeated failed contact, in February 2022, the caseworker discovered

the respondent’s phone was disconnected. The caseworker sent the respondent a letter by mail.

The caseworker then had contact with the respondent at a permanency review hearing in April

2022, where the court found the respondent failed to make reasonable efforts or progress.

¶ 10 A new caseworker was assigned in April 2022 and a new service plan was implemented,

which identified the services he needed to participate in and complete. The respondent did not

comply with the service plan except for the item requiring he refrain from any incidents of

domestic battery. The respondent would ask about K.B. while at court, however, he never followed

up with regards to her welfare or to schedule visitation. In August 2022, K.B. began conversations

with the respondent and then decided she no longer wanted to continue to speak with him. Since

K.B. refused visits and contact, no visits were arranged. Following a clinical review meeting, it

was decided that K.B. would not be forced to visit with the respondent.

¶ 11 In April 2022, the State filed a motion to terminate the respondent’s parental rights on two

bases: (1) he failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to

K.B.’s welfare; and (2) he failed to make reasonable progress toward K.B.’s return to his home

during the nine-month period of June 30, 2021, to March 31, 2022. Following a hearing, the court

found the respondent unfit. The matter proceeded to a best interest hearing where the evidence

showed K.B. was a sophomore in high school and was on her seventh foster placement. Her past

placements showed unacceptable behavior and mental health struggles. K.B.’s current foster

4
 family stated they were committed to K.B. The foster mother was K.B.’s former middle school

teacher, and K.B. referred to her foster parents as “mom” and “dad.” K.B. had been with this

placement for four months and was happy.

¶ 12 The foster family stated K.B. had no behavioral issues and they were committed to K.B.

for permanency. K.B. began opening up to the family about her past trauma, needs, and desire to

stay in the home. K.B. received high grades and was thinking about college and her future. She

also bonded with the foster family, friends at school, and played basketball. The caseworker

provided the respondent had still not completed the integrated assessment or services. The

guardian ad litem opined it was in K.B.’s best interest to terminate the respondent’s parental rights

so that K.B. could have some permanency. The court found it was in K.B.’s best interest to

terminate the respondent’s parental rights on both grounds. The respondent appeals.

¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 14 On appeal, the respondent argues that the circuit court’s finding that he was unfit and

decision to terminate his parental rights were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 15 The involuntary termination of parental rights is a two-step process. First, the State must

prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is “unfit” as defined in section 1(D) of the

Adoption Act. In re Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d 883, 889 (2004). If the court finds the parent

“unfit” within the meaning of section 1(D) of the Adoption Act, it must then determine whether

the child’s best interest favors terminating parental rights. In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329, 337-38 (2010).

¶ 16 A. Fitness

¶ 17 A circuit court’s fitness determination will only be reversed if its findings of fact were

against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 208 (2001). A finding is

against the manifest weight of the evidence when an opposite conclusion is clearly evident. In re

5
 A.W., 231 Ill. 2d 92, 102 (2008). We will not overturn a court’s findings merely because we would

have reached a different result. In re K.B., 2012 IL App (3d) 110655, ¶ 23.

¶ 18 In this case, the court found that the respondent was unfit on two grounds: (1) he failed to

maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to K.B.’s welfare (750 ILCS

50/1(D)(b) (West 2022)); and (2) he failed to make reasonable progress toward K.B.’s return to

his home during the nine-month period of June 30, 2021, to March 31, 2022 (750 ILCS

50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022)). However, the respondent only challenges the latter ground on the

sole basis that he was just released from prison and the time period was not sufficient for him to

engage in or complete services. The State was only required to prove one statutory ground for

unfitness. In re Tr. A., 2020 IL App (2d) 200225, ¶ 43. So, even if the court’s finding of unfitness

was erroneous as to the nine-month period, it is without a difference as the court’s other basis for

finding the respondent unfit still stands unchallenged.

¶ 19 Moreover, the respondent fails to cite any authority for his argument that his incarceration

for around four months during the nine-month period somehow excuses his lack of progress. In re

A.M., 358 Ill. App. 3d 247, 251 (2005) (“Bare contentions advanced without citation to relevant

authority do not merit consideration on appeal.”). Accordingly, the court’s finding of unfitness

was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 20 B. Best Interest

¶ 21 Once the court finds the parents unfit, all further considerations must yield to the child’s

best interest. In re D.M, 298 Ill. App. 3d 574, 581 (1998). Here, the court determined that K.B.’s

best interest favored terminating the respondent’s parental rights. A reviewing court reviews a best

interest determination under the manifest weight of the evidence standard. In re J.B., 2019 IL App

(4th) 190537, ¶ 33. In making a best interest determination, the court must consider the following

6
 factors in the context of the child’s age and developmental needs: the child’s physical safety and

welfare; development of the child’s identity; the child’s background; the child’s attachments; the

child’s wishes and long-term goals; the child’s community ties; the child’s needs for permanence;

the uniqueness of every family and child; the risks inherent to substitute care; and the preferences

of the people available to care for the child. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2022).

¶ 22 The respondent’s only argument on this issue is that there remains a bond between him and

K.B. Again, he has failed to cite any authority suggesting that a bond can outweigh every other

consideration or point to any evidence suggesting that such a bond exists. Regardless, our review

of the record demonstrates that it was in K.B.’s best interest to terminate the respondent’s parental

rights based on many factors, including, but not limited to: (1) K.B.’s physical safety and welfare

were being met by her foster family; (2) K.B. has opened up to her foster family about past trauma

and her needs; (3) K.B. began advocating for herself and looking at her future; (4) K.B.’s

background and ties with the respondent were not positive compared to her relationship with her

foster mother with whom she had a positive relationship; (5) K.B. displayed a sense of attachment

with her foster family by referring to her foster parents as “mom” and “dad”; (6) K.B. was happy

in the home and did not want to move; (7) K.B.’s foster parents were committed to K.B. with the

goal of adoption; (8) K.B. made friends at school, where she earned high grades, and played

basketball; and (9) K.B.’s foster family met her need for stability.

¶ 23 Thus, the court’s decision to terminate the respondent’s parental rights was not against the

manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 24 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 25 The judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County is affirmed.

¶ 26 Affirmed.

7