In re Adoption of B.R., 2022 IL App (3d) 220104-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Adoption of B.R., 2022 IL App (3d) 220104-U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. Sept. 21, 2022) (Rule 23 order — nonprecedential).
- Petitioners/Appellees: Shelby R. (n/k/a Shelby M.) and Josh M. (prospective adoptive parents).
- Respondent/Appellant: Diego M. (biological father).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly found respondent unfit under 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) for “failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility” for the minor.
- Whether termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest.

3. Holding/outcome
- The Appellate Court affirmed. The trial court’s findings that Diego was unfit and that termination of his parental rights served the child’s best interest were upheld.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Fitness: The court relied on established law that the inquiry focuses on the parent’s efforts (not only successes) to maintain contact and responsibility (In re Adoption of Syck; In re Daphnie E.). Evidence showed Diego had no contact with the child since December 2012 (a period exceeding four years), made no financial contributions, failed to pursue paternity litigation meaningfully (multiple counsel withdrawals and failures to appear), and did not seek parenting time after an order of protection expired. Although Diego cited incarceration, immigration custody, and financial inability to retain counsel, the court found these did not excuse the absence of demonstrable efforts to maintain the parent–child relationship.
- Best interests: The court considered statutory best-interest factors and evidence that the child had an established, parental relationship with Josh (called him “dad”), was integrated into the household with siblings and extended family support, was in counseling and aware of his parentage, and expressed a desire to remain with Josh. The guardian ad litem supported adoption. The court found continuity, stability, and the child’s expressed wishes favored termination.

5. Practice implications
- For respondents challenging termination: diligently document and pursue all reasonable steps to maintain contact (written communications, retained counsel, motions for paternity/parenting time), especially when impeded by incarceration or immigration custody; preserve proof of attempts and explain barriers in the record.
- For petitioners seeking adoption: develop a focused record of the biological parent’s lack of contact/support, prosecution failures in paternity actions, the child’s bonding with prospective adoptive parent, GAL support, and in‑camera testimony when appropriate.
- Note: This is a Rule 23 order (nonprecedential) — persuasive but not binding precedent.