In re Adoption of A.C., 2022 IL App (5th) 220445‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Adoption of A.C., No. 5‑22‑0445, 2022 IL App (5th) 220445‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., Nov. 28, 2022).
- Petitioners‑Appellees: foster parents Dawn Sigler and Robert Copeland.
- Intervenor/Counterpetitioner‑Appellant: maternal grandfather Richard Mares.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider Grandfather’s counterpetition for adoption (challenged as procedurally insufficient).
- Whether the trial court’s grant of the foster parents’ adoption petition and denial of Grandfather’s counterpetition was against the manifest weight of the evidence (i.e., whether the adoption served the child’s best interests).

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The circuit court had jurisdiction to consider the counterpetition, and its decision to allow the foster parents to adopt A.C. and deny Grandfather’s counterpetition was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

4) Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- Jurisdiction/pleading: The court rejected the argument that the counterpetition’s alleged defects deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. The foster parents did not press a sufficiency/noncompliance objection in the trial court, and the appellate court treated the issue accordingly.
- Best interests and manifest‑weight review: The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations. Key evidentiary points supporting the foster parents included (a) DCFS’s investigative report and consent to adoption; (b) GAL’s reports and testimony (initially neutral but indicating concerns about unproven drug allegations and ultimately supporting the foster placement absent proof of abuse); (c) testimony that A.C. had been in the foster parents’ continuous care since 2020, was bonded to them, and was thriving in school; (d) negative drug testing and an unfounded DCFS complaint related to the foster mother; and (e) concerns about Grandfather’s background (criminal convictions, an order‑of‑protection violation, limited recent contact with the child, and prior reluctance/declination to take the child when offered). Balancing these factors, the trial court reasonably concluded the foster parents’ adoption served A.C.’s best interests.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Preservation: Immediately raise and litigate any Adoption Act pleading or jurisdictional defects in the trial court; failure to do so risks waiver.
- Evidence focus: In contested adoptions, courts heavily weigh continuity, bonding, DCFS consent, GAL input, and credibility of allegations (e.g., substance abuse). Produce clear documentary or testimonial proof when alleging caregiver unfitness.
- Relative petitions: Kinship/relative status alone may not prevail if the nonparent cannot show best‑interest superiority; timely and sustained involvement and a clean fitness record are critical.
- Preparation: Anticipate and neutralize common welfare allegations (drug use, safety incidents) with contemporaneous records (drug tests, DCFS dispositions, third‑party testimony).