2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U
No. 2-23-0217
Order filed December 28, 2023
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent
except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
In re L.B., a Minor ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of Kane County.
)
) No. 20-JA-153
)
) Honorable
(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner- ) Kathryn D. Karayannis,
Appellee, v. Jenna E., Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Birkett and Mullen concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: We grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s
judgment terminating respondent’s parental rights, concluding that there exist no
issues of arguable merit to be raised on appeal.
¶2 Respondent, Jenna E., appeals from the trial court’s order finding her unfit to parent her
child, L.B. (born January 5, 2015), and terminating her parental rights. 1 Her appellate counsel has
moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has read the
1
The parental rights of L.B.’s father, William Gregory B., are not at issue in this appeal, as
he is deceased.
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U
record and concluded there exist no issues of arguable merit to be raised on appeal. See In re S.M.,
314 Ill. App. 3d 682, 685 (2000) (holding Anders applies to cases involving termination of parental
rights). Counsel has supported his motion with a memorandum of law providing a statement of
facts, potential issues, and argument as to why those issues lack arguable merit. See In re Alexa
J., 345 Ill. App. 3d 985, 988 (2003) (further holding that “counsel must identify at least one
potentially justiciable issue in a motion to withdraw under Anders.”). Counsel served respondent
with a copy of the motion and memorandum. We advised respondent that she had 30 days to
respond to counsel’s motion. That time has passed, and no response was filed. We conclude that
this appeal lacks arguable merit based on the reasons set forth in counsel’s memorandum.
Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶3 We note that this appeal was accelerated under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a) (eff.
July 1, 2018). Pursuant to that rule, the appellate court must, except for good cause shown, issue
its decision in an accelerated case within 150 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. Ill. S. Ct.
R. 311(a)(5) (eff. July 1, 2018). Here, respondent filed her notice of appeal on June 28, 2023.
Respondent’s first counsel filed his motion to withdraw on August 24, 2023, and respondent was
given 30 days to respond; no response was filed. On October 18, 2023, this court struck counsel’s
motion, as counsel had not complied with the procedure laid out in Alexa J., and we discharged
counsel and remanded the case for the limited purpose of appointment of other counsel. On
October 20, 2018, we denied discharged counsel’s motion to reconsider. The trial court appointed
new counsel, and, on November 22, 2023, counsel moved to withdraw under Anders. Due to these
circumstances, we find good cause for this decision to be issued after the timeframe mandated by
Rule 311(a).
¶4 I. BACKGROUND
-2-
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U
¶5 On October 5, 2020, the State petitioned for a finding that L.B. was a neglected minor due
to his environment being injurious to his welfare, in that respondent’s mental health issues placed
him at risk of harm. Respondent has bipolar type 1 disorder and schizoaffective disorder. The
Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) responded to a call on August 22, 2020,
concerning L.B.’s well-being after respondent was allegedly being aggressive toward her father in
the child’s presence and being verbally aggressive toward L.B. Respondent had been in a manic
state for several months, refusing to take her medication for bipolar disorder. She was hospitalized
for 10 days in September 2020 and signed herself out against her caregivers’ recommendations
(allegedly based on insurance issues) on September 23, 2020. After release, she allegedly made
suicidal statements and threatened L.B. with physical harm. DCFS implemented an in-home safety
plan with the maternal grandparents, with whom respondent and L.B. resided. On October 2, 2020,
respondent became combative and refused to sign the safety plan. DCFS took protective custody
of L.B. on that date, and he was placed in his paternal grandparents’ home. DCFS was granted
temporary custody of L.B. on October 6, 2020.
¶6 Tiffany Fabian, a DCFS investigator, testified that respondent had been physically and
verbally aggressive with her father in L.B.’s presence, called L.B. names (“dumb shit” and “piece
of garbage”), and had threatened to put him in the ground. She also claimed that she was not
bipolar or mentally ill and had ADHD. A psychiatrist at the hospital indicated that respondent was
delusional and paranoid. After DCFS took protective custody of L.B., respondent sent Fabian 75
text messages. The trial court found that there was probable cause for the petition to proceed,
granted DCFS temporary custody of L.B., and appointed CASA as guardian ad litem.
¶7 The adjudicatory hearing was held on April 8, 2021. Fabian testified as to how L.B. came
into care and related that a psychiatrist at Hartgrove Hospital had advised that L.B. should not
-3-
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U
remain in respondent’s care if she failed to maintain her medication regime. During the course of
Fabian’s investigation, she learned that respondent was not medication compliant. She spoke to
respondent on October 2, 2020, at the grandparents’ home in Carpentersville, and respondent
appeared very disheveled and was paranoid, refused to sign the safety plan (she initially signed the
plan but she was required to sign again every five days), and stated she was moving and taking
L.B. with her. She was also verbally mean toward L.B. and, when he asked for a hug, she told
him to stay six feet away from her due to COVID-19. DCFS took protective custody of L.B.
¶8 Fabian also testified about the text messages respondent sent her. She related that
respondent was aggressive and attacked Fabian in the messages. She also stated she did not have
bipolar disorder and that L.B. had issues that she was trying to fix. Respondent also accused L.B.
of being verbally and physically aggressive toward her and calling her vulgar names. She also
stated that L.B. was not her child.
¶9 Respondent testified that she appeared disheveled the day Fabian visited because she was
getting ready for the gym. She stated that she had taken L.B. to the police station because he was
verbally aggressive with her and had punched her in the face. Respondent also claimed that Fabian
took L.B. and drove off without him being fastened in a car seat. Respondent denied being verbally
abusive toward L.B.
¶ 10 The trial court found that L.B. was a neglected minor. At the May 7, 2021, dispositional
hearing, the court noted it had reviewed DCFS’s family service plan (dated April 20, 2021), and
the integrated assessment (dated February 8, 2021), and a CASA report. The court found that L.B.
should be made a ward of the court. It determined that respondent was not fit or able to care for
her son and needed to complete services, including: a mental health assessment and recommended
-4-
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U
treatments (random drug tests, substance abuse evaluation, parenting education, participation in
visitation, and medication compliance). The court set the goal to return home within 12 months.
¶ 11 Permanency review hearings on October 4, 2021, and April 4, 2022, reflected that
respondent had been participating in services and making progress; however, the court was
awaiting written reports and a neuropsychological evaluation.
¶ 12 At an October 3, 2022, permanency review hearing, the trial court acknowledged that
respondent had made reasonable efforts and progress but that the parenting capacity assessment
was required to be completed and that she needed to show she was substance free for six months
prior in order for the assessment to be conducted. Respondent had three months of clean drug
tests. A June 10, 2022, missed drug test was considered positive. She had clean tests in July and
August 2022. The court found that respondent was attending psychiatrist appointments and
individual therapy and that she was medication compliant. She had been consistently visiting L.B.
Respondent had also completed a substance abuse evaluation, and no recommendations were made
for further treatment; however, the court wanted to see the evaluation.
¶ 13 At an April 21, 2023, permanency review hearing, Kiya Murphy, a Lutheran Child and
Family Services LCFS) caseworker, noted that respondent had engaged in inappropriate name
calling of her and, during the prior week, had posted her personal information on social media.
Murphy had also recently learned that respondent was not seeing her psychiatrist because the
doctor no longer accepted Medicaid. The parenting capacity assessment had been scheduled for
mid-May. Murphy also reported that respondent had not resumed services and had stopped
participating in individual therapy at 7 Hills Behavioral Center. She was also not medication
compliant. The trial court found that the appropriate goal was substitute care pending
determination of a petition to terminate parental rights. L.B., the court noted, had been in care for
-5-
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U
2½ years, was well cared for at his paternal grandparents’ house, and deserved to have
permanency. Reports indicated that L.B. reported that, during visitations, respondent did not
interact with him much. Respondent’s lack of participation in individual therapy was not
dependent on finances. As of the last court date, the court noted, respondent had been on “texting
binges,” texting the caseworker (and not always about the case). The trial court also noted that
respondent had not been attending visitations since the beginning of April, because they had been
suspended due to the significant mental health concerns reported by her psychiatrist. The court
also found that the delay in the parenting capacity assessment was partially based on respondent’s
use of THC. It further noted that inpatient care had been recommended. The court found that
respondent had made efforts but not made reasonable or substantial progress to the return home of
L.B.
¶ 14 On May 8, 2023, the State petitioned to terminate respondent’s parental rights, alleging
that respondent was unfit in that she had failed to: (1) maintain a reasonable degree of interest,
concern, or responsibility as to L.B.’s welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2022)); (2) protect L.B.
from conditions within his environment injurious to his welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(g) (West
2022)); (3) make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal
of L.B. from her during the nine-month period between April 9, 2021, and January 9, 2022, after
an adjudication of neglected, abused, or dependent minor (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2022));
(4) make reasonable progress toward the return of L.B. to her during the nine-month period from
April 9, 2021, through January 9, 2022, after an adjudication of neglected, abused, or dependent
minor (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022)); (5) make reasonable efforts to correct the
conditions which were the basis for the removal of L.B. from her during the nine-month period
between January 10, 2022, and October 10, 2022, after an adjudication of neglected, abused, or
-6-
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U
dependent minor (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2022)); and (6) make reasonable progress toward
the return of L.B. to her during the nine-month period from January 10, 2022, through October 10,
2022, after an adjudication of neglected, abused, or dependent minor (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii)
(West 2022)). The State also argued that it was in L.B.’s best interests that respondent’s parental
rights be permanently terminated and that DCFS remain legal guardian with power to consent to
his adoption.
¶ 15 A. Fitness Hearing
¶ 16 On June 15, 2023, a hearing was held on the State’s petition. Veronica Michalski, a
caseworker at LCFS who was assigned to L.B.’s case between October 2020 and December 2022,
testified that L.B. came into care because respondent was aggressive toward her father and
sometimes verbally abusive toward L.B. She had made threats against L.B. that she was going to
bury him. After an integrated assessment, it was recommended that respondent undergo a
psychiatric assessment, medication assessment (and be medication compliant), counseling, a
parenting class, substance abuse assessment, and periodic drug tests. Michalski testified that,
during the latter part of her tenure, respondent was seeing a psychiatrist and taking her prescribed
medications. Respondent also consistently saw her therapist at 7 Hills, but progress was
“extremely slow and difficult,” because respondent did not understand why she was required to be
in counseling. Also, respondent never moved to unsupervised visits, nor did she undergo a
recommended parenting capacity assessment. DCFS required that respondent be drug-free (other
than prescribed medications) for at least six months. Respondent submitted to random drug tests,
and, initially, for several months, she tested positive for THC in January, March, and April 2022
(which delayed the parenting capacity assessment). She also tested positive for cocaine in March
2022. Toward the end of Michalski’s tenure, however, respondent was testing negative.
-7-
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U
Respondent completed a substance abuse assessment and did not qualify for services. She was
referred for a parenting class and successfully completed it.
¶ 17 Addressing visitations, Michalski testified that the visits were weekly, initially on Zoom.
In March 2022, due to a job change, visits were supervised by respondent’s parents on weekends.
Respondent’s conduct during the visits was initially very good, but she did not speak much to L.B.
L.B. initiated conversations. Once the visits moved to in-person, they occurred in parks or the
library. Respondent became less “stiff” and she brought craft projects, toys, etc. She regularly
communicated with Michalski, but did not inquire about L.B. During the time Michalski was
respondent’s caseworker, respondent lived with her parents and had about six or eight jobs, as she
frequently switched employment. When Michalski retired, respondent had not been discharged
from her therapy.
¶ 18 While respondent was in therapy, according to Michalski, she did not understand why she
was required to be in counseling and her insight was limited. However, she consistently attended.
¶ 19 Kiya Murphy, a child welfare specialist at LCFS, succeeded Michalski as the caseworker
in December 2022. At that time, respondent’s visits were being supervised by her parents. For
various reasons, Murphy never supervised them. Respondent was seeing a psychiatrist and a
therapist. Murphy sent respondent for random drug tests, and respondent missed four tests. She
did not have any positive tests during Murphy’s tenure. A parenting capacity assessment was
scheduled for May 1, 2023, but respondent left before the interviews started, thus, the assessment
was never completed.
¶ 20 During Murphy’s tenure, respondent consistently visited L.B., but, in April 2023, her visits
were suspended because the agency received reports from L.B. about respondent not interacting
with him and arguing with her parents during visitations. Also, the agency received information
-8-
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U
from respondent’s psychiatrist and therapist that they were very concerned for her well-being and
that she was not attending appointments. Further, respondent was not medication compliant at this
time. The psychiatrist recommended inpatient hospitalization.
¶ 21 Murphy also learned that respondent’s boyfriend attended visits with her. This was
concerning because Murphy did not know anything about the boyfriend and the agency had not
conducted a background check on him. Further, in April 2023, Murphy learned about two social
media posts by respondent wherein she used Murphy’s full name and employer and called Murphy
a “disrespectful snot.” Murphy also related that, beginning in January 2023, respondent began
excessively texting her. She asked respondent to stop, but it continued. The texting was
acknowledged at a February 2023 court date, but it got worse afterwards and included “random
bizarre messages.” Respondent’s client service plan included a provision to refrain from excessive
texting.
¶ 22 Respondent was rated as unsatisfactory in her April 2023 client service plan, because she
was not complying with services and her visits had been suspended. During Murphy’s tenure,
respondent never successfully met her treatment goals. Nor was she successfully discharged from
therapy.
¶ 23 In May 2023, Murphy received multiple text messages from respondent. One text included
a YouTube video of a song with lyrics that were concerning; one about being taken away in a
hearse and another about being cut up. Following the text, the foster mother (i.e., paternal
grandmother) obtained an order of protection for her, her husband, and L.B. against respondent.
¶ 24 On cross-examination, Murphy testified that, when she took over the case, respondent was
participating in services at 7 Hills, visitations, and was medication compliant.
-9-
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U
¶ 25 Jennifer B., L.B.’s foster mother and his paternal grandmother, testified that respondent
used to date her son. In March 2023, when L.B. returned home from his visits with respondent,
he was upset on two occasions. On the first occasion, he cried and stated that respondent had left
the visit early. The second time, he was upset and stated that his mother was not right and that
respondent had argued with her parents. Jennifer also testified that, between December 2022 and
May 2023, she received about 150 texts from respondent; only three or four texts asked about L.B.
Jennifer did not respond because some of the messages were “off.” She reached out to the
caseworker and respondent’s parents.
¶ 26 The trial court found that the State had proven the allegations in each of the counts of its
petition, excluding the third and fifth counts relating to reasonable efforts. It found the witnesses
credible and determined that respondent did not comply with recommendations to stay hospitalized
and medication compliant. Addressing visitations, the court found that respondent left visits early
and did not inquire about L.B. The court also determined that respondent had tested positive for
THC and cocaine despite being informed that she could not use those substances while on other
medication and while completing services. She also failed to participate in the parenting capacity
assessment. The court determined that the unrebutted testimony established that respondent made
“very slow” progress at times. Evidence relating to her individual therapy showed that she did not
understand why DCFS was involved or how her behavior affected this case. The court also noted
that respondent’s visitations never moved to being unsupervised over the 2½-year pendency of the
case. It also noted her excessive texting. Also, during visits with her parents, she argued, left
early, and upset L.B. She also texted about a song lyric relating to a hearse and cutting someone
up. Respondent had also been recommended for inpatient treatment but had not attended and had
stopped seeing her psychiatrist and individual therapist.
- 10 -
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U
¶ 27 B. Best Interests Hearing
¶ 28 At the best interests hearing, Murphy testified that L.B. has been placed with his paternal
grandparents since October 2020. She visits twice per month, and the home is nice and large, and
L.B. has many toys. He appears to have a strong bond with his grandparents and does well in
school. His grandparents take him to activities, such as movies, camping in the backyard, or
picnics. He also interacts with extended family.
¶ 29 The home is pre-adoptive. The grandparents have been supportive of individual therapy,
and they are currently meeting all of L.B.’s needs. Murphy opined that L.B. deserves a permanent
home with grandparents. They are willing to permit safe and appropriate contact with respondent
and her side of the family.
¶ 30 The trial court found that it was in L.B.’s best interests that respondent’s parental rights be
terminated. The relevant factors all favored this, the court determined, and L.B. was being well
cared for by his paternal grandparents, he loves them, and, per a therapist’s report, prefers
remaining in their care.
¶ 31 Respondent appealed. The trial court appointed counsel to represent respondent on appeal.
As noted, appellate counsel has moved to withdraw, in accordance with Anders.
¶ 32 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 33 In his Anders motion, counsel argues that there may be an argument to be made that the
State failed to establish that respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward the return home
of L.B. during the nine-month period from April 9, 2021, through January 9, 2022, but that no
such argument can be made for the remaining three grounds upon which the trial court found
respondent unfit, evidence for which was overwhelming, or its best interests determination, and,
thus, an appeal on this basis would be frivolous and without merit.
- 11 -
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U
¶ 34 The Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2022)) sets forth a two-stage
process for the involuntary termination of parental rights. In re Keyon R., 2017 IL App (2d)
160657, ¶ 16. Initially, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that
the parent is unfit under any single ground set forth in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS
50/1(D) (West 2022)). 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2), (4) (West 2022); In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329, 337
(2010). If the trial court finds the parent unfit, the State must then show by a preponderance of the
evidence that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2)
(West 2022); In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 367 (2004). On appeal, this court will not disturb a trial
court’s finding as to parental unfitness or a child’s best interests unless it is against the manifest
weight of the evidence. In re N.B., 2019 IL App (2d) 180797, ¶¶ 30, 43. A decision is against the
manifest weight of the evidence where the decision is unreasonable. Keyon R., 2017 IL App (2d)
160657, ¶ 16.
¶ 35 Furthermore, it is well settled that, “when parental rights are terminated based upon clear
and convincing evidence of a single ground of unfitness, the reviewing court need not consider
additional grounds for unfitness cited by the trial court.” In re Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d 883,
891 (2004). Hence, if we affirm the trial court’s decision on one ground, we need not consider the
court’s decision on the other grounds. After careful review, we agree that there would be no
arguable merit to a challenge to the court’s finding of unfitness because, at a minimum, the court’s
finding that respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward reunification during the nine-
month period January 10, 2022, through October 10, 2022, is not contrary to the manifest weight
of the evidence.
¶ 36 The question of reasonable progress is an objective one, which requires the trial court to
consider whether a parent’s actions during a given nine-month period would support the court’s
- 12 -
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U
decision to return the child home soon. In re Phoenix F., 2016 IL App (2d) 150431, ¶ 7. The court
will consider the parent’s compliance with the service plans and the court’s directives. In re C.N.,
196 Ill. 2d 181, 216-17 (2001). For there to be reasonable progress, there must be, at a minimum,
some measurable or demonstrable movement toward the goal of reunification. In re J.O., 2021 IL
App (3d) 210248, ¶ 57.
¶ 37 We agree with counsel that the potential issue he identifies lacks arguable merit. Because
any single ground properly proven may support an unfitness finding (Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d
at 891), whether respondent made progress toward reunification in the nine-month period from
April 9, 2021, to January 9, 2022, does not diminish or outweigh her failure to make reasonable
progress during the period from January 10, 2022, through October 10, 2022. 2 The record amply
supports the trial court’s determination that respondent failed to make reasonable progress during
the latter period. She attended individual therapy during this period, but, as her therapist noted,
she did not demonstrate an understanding of the risk factors that contributed to DCFS’s
involvement. Similarly, Michalski testified that respondent’s progress with her psychiatric therapy
was “extremely slow and difficult” because respondent did not understand why she was required
to be in counseling. Also, four out of eight drug tests were considered positive, one of which
(March 2022) was positive for cocaine and three of which (January, March, and April 2022) were
positive for THC; also, respondent failed to appear for a June 2022 drug test. The positive tests
delayed her ability to engage in the parenting capacity assessment, which was a required service
2
Although the record reflects that respondent’s compliance with services deteriorated after
this period, we do not address it because the State’s petition did not include allegations for the
period after October 2022.
- 13 -
2023 IL App (2d) 230217-U
toward the goal of reunification. Also, Michelski testified that, as of late 2022, respondent had not
been successfully discharged from therapy. Although respondent was consistent with visitations,
she never moved to unsupervised visits. A September 27, 2022, service plan noted that respondent
listened to L.B., but that L.B. carried conversations and respondent did not respond much and
merely repeated what L.B. stated. Also, when she communicated with Michalski, she did not
inquire about L.B.
¶ 38 As to the best interests finding, the trial court found that L.B. has bonded with his
grandparents (who meet his needs), does well in school, participates in activities, and interacts
with his extended family.
¶ 39 Based on the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s fitness finding was against
the manifest weight of the evidence. Thus, we agree with counsel that no viable argument
challenging the court’s finding could be raised. We also agree that no viable argument can be
raised concerning the court’s best interests determination.
¶ 40 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 41 After examining the record, the motion to withdraw, and the supporting memorandum of
law, we agree with appellate counsel that respondent’s appeal presents no issues of arguable merit.
Thus, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane
County.
¶ 42 Motion granted; affirmed.
- 14 -