In re Adoption of S.S., 2023 IL App (3d) 220339-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Adoption of S.S. and A.S., 2023 IL App (3d) 220339-U (Ill. App. 3d Dist. Jan. 30, 2023) (Rule 23 non‑precedential). Petitioners/Appellants: Paulla Grzych and Eduardo Ochoa (would‑be adoptive parents/guardians). Respondent/Appellee: Allen J.S., Jr. (biological father).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether father was unfit under the Adoption Act based on “depravity” (750 ILCS 5/1(D)(i)) due to multiple felony convictions.
2) Whether termination of the father’s parental rights and adoption by the guardians was in the minors’ best interests — i.e., whether the trial court’s best‑interest determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court held that the trial court’s denial of the petitioners’ request to terminate the father’s parental rights and to adopt the children was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court’s finding of unfitness was upheld, and the appellate court reversed the best‑interest ruling (remanding consistent with its opinion).

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
The trial court found the father statutorily unfit under 750 ILCS 5/1(D)(i) based on an unrebutted record of multiple felony convictions (including at least one within five years of the petition), and his courtroom conduct and threats supported the finding of depravity. The father offered no meaningful evidence of rehabilitation (e.g., sustained treatment, anger management) or stable parenting capacity. The record also contained evidence of prior domestic violence, an extended plenary guardianship in place since 2015 (maternal aunt), an active order of protection, documented threats and volatile conduct (including interactions with police and courthouse witnesses), and the children’s long‑term stable placement with the guardians. On appeal the court concluded the totality of this evidence supported termination as consistent with the children’s safety, stability, and best interests; the trial court’s contrary best‑interest determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Practice implications for family attorneys
- Depravity under 750 ILCS 5/1(D)(i) can be established by an unrebutted felony conviction history; absence of rehabilitation or treatment is damaging.
- Best‑interest determinations hinge on stability, continuity of care, safety (domestic violence, threats), and demonstrated caregiving by guardians — assemble documentary evidence (orders of protection, guardianship papers, benefit payments, school/medical records).
- Preserve error: timely post‑trial motions are critical (the trial court struck an untimely motion to reconsider).
- Witness safety and courtroom conduct can materially affect findings; document threats, police reports, and protective orders.
- Although this is a Rule 23 order (nonprecedential), it is a useful roadmap for combining statutory unfitness proofs with robust best‑interest evidence to obtain termination/adoption.