In re Adoption of E.W., 2023 IL App (1st) 230275-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Adoption of E.W., 2023 IL App (1st) 230275‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Sept. 6, 2023) (Rule 23 order). Petitioners/Appellants: Nayibe Arzuza & Kevin Catalano (prospective adoptive parents). Respondent/Appellee: Nicholas Williams (biological father).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether petitioners proved respondent’s parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence under the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(a), (b), (h)) — abandonment; failure to maintain reasonable interest/concern/responsibility; other neglect/misconduct.
2) Admissibility of alleged settlement communications (letter and texts) under Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 408.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court: petitioners failed to prove unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, and the petition for adoption was dismissed.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: factual/unfitness findings evaluated for manifest weight of the evidence.
- The trial court concluded respondent did, in fact, make the monetary “offer” to surrender parental rights, but that proof of a pecuniary motive alone did not establish statutory unfitness. The court emphasized respondent’s ongoing interest in and efforts to parent: regular exercise of visitation pre‑COVID, attempts to maintain phone contact, attendance at activities, filing police reports when visitation was denied, and filing a motion to enforce parenting time. Those facts undercut abandonment and failure‑to‑maintain claims.
- Credibility and timing were pivotal: the court disbelieved petitioners’ claim that visitation was cut off immediately on receipt of the offer (offer Sept. 2020; visitation continued until Dec. 2020).
- Rule 408: the trial court admitted the settlement‑labeled materials, finding Rule 408 inapplicable because the evidence was not offered to prove liability or value of a claim but to show respondent’s state of mind/intent; appellate court accepted that ruling.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Unfitness is a high bar: pecuniary offers or objectionable conduct do not automatically meet the clear‑and‑convincing standard; demonstrate objective, sustained parental disengagement (dates, refusals, missed contacts, corroborating witnesses).
- Preserve and develop evidence of enforcement efforts (police reports, enforcement petitions, TalkingParents logs, school/medical contacts) — these can rebut abandonment/failure‑to‑maintain claims.
- Rule 408 pitfalls: labeling communications “for settlement” or including disclaimers will not always render them inadmissible; courts may admit them if offered for non‑liability purposes (intent, state of mind, motive). Anticipate and brief admissibility issues early.
- Pleadings: explicitly plead statutory grounds for unfitness and support with chronological, corroborated facts to survive credibility determinations.
- Note: Rule 23 disposition — persuasive but limited precedential weight.