In re Adoption of D.G.

- Case citation and parties
In re Adoption of D.G., 2025 IL App (4th) 250392‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist. Oct. 28, 2025) (Rule 23 order; not precedent). Petitioners/Appellees: Case M. & Brittney M. — Respondent/Appellant: Cory G.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether respondent was denied the right to counsel where appointed public defender allegedly did not communicate with him and the court denied a continuance to retain private counsel.
2. Whether the trial court’s finding that respondent was an unfit parent under the Adoption Act (depravity, 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i)) was erroneous.
3. Whether the court’s failure to bifurcate the unfitness and best‑interest hearings required reversal. (Respondents also challenged appellate jurisdiction based on the timing of the notice of appeal.)

- Holding / Outcome
The Fourth District affirmed. (1) No denial of the right to counsel. (2) The unfitness finding was supported. (3) Any error from not bifurcating was harmless. Appellate jurisdiction was sustained (prisoner mailbox rule and record considerations).

- Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
Jurisdiction: The court confronted conflicting docket/file‑stamp dates but relied on the prisoner mailbox rule (Ill. S. Ct. R. 373) and Rule 303 to find the notice of appeal timely; remand to resolve the clerk’s inconsistencies was unnecessary. Right to counsel: the trial court inquired about counsel’s competence, respondent declined further communication with appointed counsel, asked for a continuance but had not contacted substitute counsel — the court found no basis to deem appointed counsel incapable and respondent waived appointed counsel and proceeded pro se. Unfitness: petitioners introduced certified judgments, sentencing/probation orders, multiple orders of protection, and DOC records establishing multiple felony convictions (including recent felonies) and a pattern of domestic abuse; the trial court found statutory and common‑law depravity proved by clear and convincing evidence. Bifurcation: even if bifurcation was required, any error was harmless because the unfitness proof was overwhelming.

- Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Ensure the record is clear when a litigant waives appointed counsel: on‑the‑record colloquy and documentation of any continuance requests and whether substitute counsel was sought.
- In termination/adoption matters, authenticated criminal records, orders of protection, and DOC status are powerful evidence to prove depravity under 1(D)(i).
- Move early to bifurcate if strategically important; but if unfitness evidence is strong, appellate courts may deem a bifurcation error harmless.
- For incarcerated clients, preserve mailing dates (prisoner mailbox rule) and get filed/file‑stamped judgments into the record to avoid jurisdictional disputes.