In re Adoption of H.M.F.D., 2021 IL App (5th) 210228-U

- Case: In re Adoption of H.M.F.D. and H.J.F.D., 2021 IL App (5th) 210228-U
- Court/Date: Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District (Order filed Dec. 8, 2021; Rule 23 order — not precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1))
- Parties: Petitioners/Appellees — Kenneth B. and Electa M.; Respondent/Appellant — Jasmine F. (mother of the twins)

Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s finding that the mother was an unfit parent under the Adoption Act — specifically 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (failure to maintain reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility), 1(D)(n) (evidence of intent to forgo parental rights manifested by 12 months’ failure to visit/communicate/plan), and 1(D)(m)(i) — was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests.

Holding / Outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court’s findings of parental unfitness and its best-interest determination were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Parental rights were terminated and petitioners were permitted to adopt.

Significant legal reasoning
- Evidence showed severe, nonaccidental injuries to the twins shortly after birth (13 fractures across both children), and a California finding of nonaccidental physical abuse. Because of the severity and age of the children, formal reunification services were not ordered in California.
- The mother had supervised, no-contact/supervised-contact visits early on but ceased visiting after limited supervised contact; she had no visits after the children moved to Illinois. The record included testimony that the mother did not send gifts, letters, or financial support, did not maintain contact for over a year, and had been blocked by the custodial father. Petitioners and the California GAL corroborated lack of ongoing involvement; mother’s friends/counseling witnesses attested to her stated interest but could not overcome the objective evidence of noncontact.
- The appellate court applied the manifest-weight standard, finding the decree supported by testimony and documentary evidence. The court also found termination served the children’s best interests given their stability, bonding with petitioners, and lack of meaningful relationship with the mother.

Practice implications
- In severe-abuse contexts courts may decline to order reunification services; therefore prompt, documented efforts by a parent to maintain contact, visitation, and to plan for future reunification are critical.
- Attorneys should preserve and present contemporaneous evidence of attempts to communicate (texts, calls, visitation requests, receipts for travel/gifts, witness testimony) and explain resource limitations for delay in bringing proceedings.
- Custodial parents seeking adoption should document blocking, lack of communication, absence of support/gifts, and stable caregiving to support fitness and best-interest findings.
- Note: this opinion is a Rule 23 nonprecedential order — persuasive but not binding outside Rule 23(e)(1) limits.