In re A.V.

Overview

The Fourth District affirmed the termination of respondent father Edward B.'s parental rights to his daughter A.V. The court held the trial court's finding of unfitness under section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act — failure to make reasonable progress during the nine-month period of October 15, 2024, to July 15, 2025 — was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The best-interest finding was not challenged on appeal.

Key Facts

A.V. (born March 2020) was adjudicated neglected in October 2024 based on risk of harm from the mother's untreated mental health and substance abuse issues.

Recommended services for respondent included substance abuse assessment/treatment, drug screens, a domestic violence program, counseling, a psychological evaluation and parenting capacity assessment, cooperation with DCFS, appropriate housing, and visits.

Respondent completed outpatient substance abuse treatment, attended the domestic violence program, counseling, and visits; his last positive screen (THC) was November 2024, but he missed roughly nine screens.

The clinical psychologist found a "dual disorder," intermittent explosive disorder, low average intellectual ability, no independent functioning, no recovery program, and poor insight; respondent denied domestic violence problems and called the assault of his pregnant girlfriend "mutual combat."

Visits were largely child-led at a trampoline park; respondent occasionally brought the minor's mother (diagnosed with schizophrenia) to visits and could not parent two children without assistance.

Housing was rented and paid for by respondent's ~85-year-old father; the home had missing floor registers (a hole large enough for the minor to fall through), roach infestation, flooring and bathroom issues, and clutter; respondent worked "under the table" at $15 an hour.

Service plans in December 2024, May 2025, and July 2025 rated progress unsatisfactory.

The psychologist opined the minor would be at high risk if returned as of June 2025.

Procedural History

Circuit Court of Tazewell County, No. 23JA239 (Judge Katherine G. P. Legge). The State petitioned to terminate in August 2025; a two-day fitness hearing was held in April and May 2026; a best-interest hearing followed in June 2026, resulting in a written termination order. Father appealed only the unfitness finding to the Fourth District.

Holdings

The unfitness finding under section 1(D)(m)(ii) for failure to make reasonable progress was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the opposite conclusion was not clearly apparent. Standard of review: manifest weight of the evidence , with the State's burden at trial being clear and convincing evidence.

Compliance with some services and successful visitation do not establish reasonable progress where unresolved housing, independence, insight, sobriety-maintenance, and parenting-capacity deficits prevent return of the child in the near future.

Legal Principles

750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2024) — failure to make reasonable progress toward return during any nine-month period following adjudication of neglected.

705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2024) — best-interest factors (applied below; unchallenged).

In re N.G. , 2018 IL 121939, ¶¶ 28-29 — clear and convincing burden; manifest weight review; opposite conclusion clearly apparent.

In re C.N. , 196 Ill. 2d 181, 211, 216-17 (2001) — reasonable progress is demonstrable movement toward reunification, benchmarked by compliance with service plans and court directives in light of the conditions causing removal and later-known conditions.

In re F.P. , 2014 IL App (4th) 140360, ¶ 88 — objective standard.

In re L.L.S. , 218 Ill. App. 3d 444, 461 (1991) — progress must be such that the court can order return in the near future.

In re Reiny S. , 374 Ill. App. 3d 1036, 1046 (2007) — only evidence from the relevant period may be considered.

No new rule announced; the order applies settled law.

Practical Implications

Attendance and completion of services is not dispositive — build or rebut the record on insight, internalization, and whether the child could be returned in the near future.

Psychological evaluations and parenting capacity assessments carry substantial weight; a denial of domestic violence (e.g., "mutual combat") after completing DV programming can be fatal to a progress argument.

For parent's counsel: cure housing and independent-living deficits within, not after, the pleaded nine-month period; post-period remediation is not considered under Reiny S.

Visitation quality matters — child-led, recreational visits may be discounted; advocate for controlled settings demonstrating parenting and structure.

Allowing contact between the child and an untreated, mentally ill co-parent during visits supports a boundary-setting/safety finding.

Distinguishing factors: here multiple independent deficits (housing, income stability, sobriety supports, insight) converged; a case with only one unresolved issue and favorable expert testimony is more defensible.

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order and is not precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1); cite it only for permitted purposes. The holding is confined to the sufficiency of the unfitness finding; the best-interest determination was unchallenged and received no appellate analysis. Statements about particular items of evidence (snacks, parenting coach's favorable testimony) are recitation, not holdings.