In re Adoption of Hayden B., 2024 IL App (5th) 231021-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Adoption of Hayden B., No. 5-23-1021, 2024 IL App (5th) 231021-U (Feb. 16, 2024) (Ill. App. 5th Dist., Rule 23 non‑precedential).
- Petitioners/Appellees: Jennifer C. and Shaun C. (mother and stepfather). Respondent/Appellant: Robert B. (biological father).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court correctly found respondent unfit under the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/) by clear and convincing evidence: failure to maintain reasonable interest/concern/responsibility, failure to visit/communicate for >12 months (intent to forego rights), failure to provide support, and depravity based on criminal convictions (including first‑degree murder and multiple felonies).
- Whether terminating parental rights and permitting adoption was in the child’s best interest.
- Whether appointed appellate counsel properly sought to withdraw under Anders and whether any meritorious appellate/fair‑trial or ineffective‑assistance claims existed.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw (Anders) and affirmed the circuit court’s orders finding respondent unfit, terminating his parental rights, and approving the adoption.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Adoption Act requires a two‑step showing: (1) unfitness by clear and convincing evidence; (2) termination and adoption are in the child’s best interest. The court credited mother’s testimony that respondent had no contact with the child since 2011, provided no support, and made no genuine effort to communicate (the court weighs efforts, not success).
- Judicial notice of respondent’s criminal record (first‑degree murder conviction and eight felonies) triggered statutory presumption of depravity (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i)); that presumption was not rebutted by respondent’s vague denials/claims of appeal. A history of serious convictions and long incarcerations supports unfitness.
- On best interest, the child had lived with petitioners for years; respondent’s 35‑year sentence made a meaningful future relationship infeasible. The guardian ad litem supported termination.
- Appellate review found no non‑frivolous issues, and no persuasive ineffective‑assistance showing (no demonstration of deficient performance + prejudice).

5. Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Preserve and develop a clear factual record on attempts to communicate/support (dates, methods, witnesses, social‑media efforts) — courts evaluate parental effort, not mere outcomes.
- Criminal convictions (especially murder or multiple felonies) can invoke statutory depravity presumptions; counsel should anticipate and prepare rebuttal evidence if available.
- Document incarceration impact on the child’s present and foreseeable future relationship for best‑interest analysis.
- When representing indigent appellants, expect Anders review if appeal lacks arguable merit; preserve specific ineffective‑assistance claims with concrete examples and prejudice analysis.
- Use the guardian ad litem’s recommendations and live testimony to reinforce best‑interest findings.