In re Adoption of T.B., 2021 IL App (4th) 200575-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Adoption of T.B., 2021 IL App (4th) 200575‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Apr. 8, 2021) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioners/Appellees: Caleb S. & Jasmen S. (maternal parents and proposed adoptive parents). Respondent/Appellant: Eric B. (biological father, incarcerated).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court erred in denying respondent’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of petitioners’ case on parental unfitness.
2) Whether the court’s finding that respondent was “depraved” and therefore an unfit parent was supported by the evidence.
3) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance and thereby limiting respondent’s ability to review discovery / present evidence of rehabilitation relevant to the depravity claim.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court: (1) held the trial court did not err in refusing a directed verdict at the close of petitioners’ case; (2) concluded the trial court’s finding of depravity was premature; and (3) found the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance that would have allowed respondent to review discovery and present rehabilitative evidence. The judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
Petitioners relied on respondent’s admissions (responses to requests to admit) and his criminal record to establish a prima facie case of unfitness under the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i) — depravity). That showing was sufficient to defeat a directed‑verdict motion because petitioners had made out a prima facie case. However, the court stressed that a finding of depravity cannot be based solely on historical convictions without consideration of subsequent rehabilitative evidence and current circumstances. The trial court had effectively concluded that evidence of rehabilitation was irrelevant to the depravity charge and denied time for the incarcerated respondent to review discovery and obtain/adduce such evidence. The appellate court found that conclusion erroneous and that the denial of a continuance under those circumstances was an abuse of discretion because it prejudiced respondent’s defense on the depravity issue.

- Practice implications for family attorneys
- Depravity claims grounded in criminal convictions are fact‑sensitive: courts must consider post‑conviction conduct and rehabilitation when assessing parental fitness. Do not treat old convictions as dispositive without allowing evidence of change.
- Requests to admit can create strong, admissible evidence and may defeat directed‑verdict motions — litigants should use them strategically.
- When a parent is incarcerated or medically incapacitated, counsel should preserve the record on the need for continuances and access to discovery; trial courts denying reasonable time to prepare or to present rehabilitative evidence risk reversal.
- Where termination/ adoption is premised largely on criminal history, be prepared to litigate current fitness and rehabilitation, not only past offenses.