In re Adoption of Scholes, 2024 IL App (5th) 231240-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Adoption of Scholes (Scholes v. Vespie), No. 5‑23‑1240, 2024 IL App (5th) 231240‑U (Ill. App. Ct. May 17, 2024) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Emily Vespie (with Anita Vespie as co‑petitioner). Respondent‑Appellee: Brian Scholes. Subject child: J.R.S.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the circuit court erred (manifest weight of the evidence) in finding father Brian fit, such that the adoption petition and request to terminate his parental rights should be denied.
- The weight to be given to father’s criminal history, periods of incarceration, alleged desertion, lack of consistent support/contact, an order of protection, and pending criminal charges/recovery efforts (drug court, employment, parenting class).

3) Holding / outcome
- The Fifth District affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Emily’s adoption petition. The appellate court held the trial court’s conclusion that Brian was not unfit was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual weighing. Although Brian had a lengthy criminal record and periods of incarceration, the evidence showed: intermittent (albeit limited) contact with the child (visits, prison visits, Skype), some financial contributions (~$1,000 and occasional reimbursements), and substantial post‑petition rehabilitative steps (drug‑court participation, stable residence and employment, completion of a parenting class).
- The trial court permissibly considered pending charges in context (particularly because they were relevant to his drug‑court involvement and rehabilitation), though it reserved the weight to be given those charges. The appellate court concluded that, viewing the whole record, the petitioners did not carry their burden to prove Brian’s parental unfitness.
- Standard of review: appellate review looked for whether the trial court’s fitness finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence and respected the trial court’s role in assessing credibility and balancing competing facts.

5) Practice implications for attorneys
- To terminate parental rights/adopt over a biological parent, litigants must produce clear, convincing, and persuasive proof of current parental unfitness — isolated convictions or past incarceration alone may be insufficient if there is evidence of ongoing contact or rehabilitation.
- Build a record tying criminal history or substance abuse to present danger or incapacity to parent (not merely past convictions). Contemporaneous evidence (child‑support payment records, missed visits, credible witness testimony about harmful conduct around the child) is critical.
- Anticipate and rebut evidence of rehabilitation (drug court progress, stable housing/employment, parenting classes). If relying on requests to admit or discovery responses, ensure proper preservation and follow‑through; failures in discovery can be litigated but may not be dispositive.
- Trial courts’ credibility determinations receive substantial deference on appeal; focus on fact development at trial rather than expecting reversal on manifest‑weight grounds.