In re Adoption of G.B.C., 2024 IL App (3d) 240428-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Adoption of G.B.C., 2024 IL App (3d) 240428-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. Nov. 15, 2024) (non‑precedential, Rule 23).
- Petitioners/Appellees: Hope McMurry‑Schoon & Thomas Schoon (guardians seeking adoption).
- Respondent/Appellant: Justin Cox (biological father).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether appointed appellate counsel may withdraw under Anders after concluding no arguable merit (Anders v. California; In re S.M.).
- Whether the trial court’s unfitness findings under the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)) were supported by clear and convincing evidence: specifically habitual drunkenness (§1(D)(k)) and multiple other statutory grounds (abandonment, depravity §1(D)(i), failure to demonstrate interest §1(D)(l), failure to provide §1(D)(o)).
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not calling a witness at the unfitness stage.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed trial court’s judgment terminating respondent’s parental rights and granting the adoption.
- Allowed appellate counsel to withdraw under Anders as there were no non‑frivolous issues to pursue.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard: unfitness must be proved by clear and convincing evidence; appellate review is highly deferential (manifest‑weight standard). The court follows the two‑step Adoption Act analysis (unfitness first, then best interests).
- The appellate court found the habitual drunkenness finding (§1(D)(k)) to be against the manifest weight because the relevant one‑year window (Oct 7, 2021–Oct 7, 2022) included >8 months of incarceration during which respondent could not drink, and testimony did not establish the required “fixed habit” or loss of control during that year (In re J.J.).
- Nevertheless, reversal was unnecessary because other statutory grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence (notably multiple felony convictions—judicially noticed—and abandonment/failed involvement/support), and proof of any one ground suffices to terminate parental rights (In re Gwynne P.).
- The Anders procedure was properly followed (counsel filed memorandum, served respondent, no response). The court admonished counsel for not fully explaining why remaining unfitness grounds lacked merit, but still concluded no arguable issues merited appeal.

5) Practice implications for family lawyers
- When defending unfitness claims, focus on disproving any single statutory ground—because proof of any one suffices. Challenge timing windows (e.g., the one‑year period for habitual drunkenness), and be prepared to present or dispute incarceration records and habit evidence.
- Expect courts to take judicial notice of convictions and DOC status; these records can be dispositive on depravity/unfitness and are difficult to overcome.
- For appellate counsel pursuing Anders withdrawal, include a clear sketch of why each potential issue is frivolous (follow S.M.); failing to do so may draw criticism even where withdrawal is allowed.
- Preserve ineffective‑assistance claims with specific prejudice and record support; mere failure to call a witness is unlikely to succeed without a developed record showing harm.