In re Adoption of J.T., 2021 IL App (4th) 210372-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Adoption of J.T., 2021 IL App (4th) 210372‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 24, 2021) (Rule 23 — nonprecedential). Petitioners‑appellees: Paul J.K. & Janet R.C. (court‑appointed guardians/maternal great‑grandparents). Respondent‑appellant: Moises T., biological father.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether respondent’s April 2021 conviction(s) for first‑degree murder (four counts, with a firearm enhancement) and armed robbery created a rebuttable presumption of parental depravity under 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i).
2) Whether respondent rebutted that presumption such that the trial court’s finding of parental unfitness (and termination of parental rights) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Holding / outcome
The Fourth District affirmed. The trial court properly found respondent an unfit parent by clear and convincing evidence (depravity) and terminated his parental rights; the appellate court held that the fitness finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning
The Adoption Act creates a rebuttable presumption of depravity where a parent has been convicted of first‑degree murder within ten years of an adoption petition (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i)). Petitioners made a prima facie showing; the burden then shifted to respondent to rebut by evidence showing he was not depraved despite the convictions. The trial court credited the conviction record (including the firearm enhancement and anticipated lengthy term of imprisonment) and found those facts demonstrated “wanton cruelty” and an inherent deficiency of moral sense and rectitude. Respondent’s evidence — his testimony maintaining innocence, a letter expressing love for the child, and statements that he had been jailed pre‑pregnancy and would appeal — did not persuade the court that he had rebutted the presumption or shown rehabilitation or a parenting lifestyle post‑release. The appellate court applied deferential review to credibility and factual findings and concluded the trial court’s decision was not clearly erroneous.

- Practice implications for attorneys
- A murder conviction within ten years creates a powerful, rebuttable presumption of depravity; rebuttal requires more than expressions of love or intent to parent — concrete evidence of moral fitness, rehabilitation, realistic plans for parenting upon release, and corroborating proof are necessary.
- Timing matters: if conviction occurs after an initial petition, petitioners may plead alternative statutory grounds; conversely, parents pre‑conviction may have different defensive strategies.
- Appellate review is deferential on fitness findings; trial‑level presentation (credibility, documentary proof of post‑release plans, sustained contacts, rehabilitation programming) is crucial.