Opinion
NO. 4-14-0538 NO. 4-14-0539 NO. 4-14-0540 NO. 4-14-0541 NO. 4-14-0542 NO. 4-14-0543 cons.
11-14-2014
In re: N.L., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. KARRIE J. LOVELESS, Respondent-Appellant. In re: K.L., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. KARRIE J. LOVELESS, Respondent-Appellant. In re: D.L., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. KARRIE J. LOVELESS, Respondent-Appellant. In re: N.L., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. DAVID LOVELESS, Respondent-Appellant. In re: K.L., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. DAVID LOVELESS, Respondent-Appellant. In re: D.L., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. DAVID LOVELESS, Respondent-Appellant.
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Vermilion County
No. 11JA34
No. 11JA35
No. 11JA36
No. 11JA34
No. 11JA35
No. 11JA36
Honorable Claudia S. Anderson, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Pope and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The trial court properly found respondent parents unfit and terminated their parental rights.
¶ 2 Respondent parents, David Loveless and Karrie Loveless, appeal the orders finding them unfit parents of N.L. (born January 2, 2005), D.L. (born February 1, 2006), and K.L. (born October 9, 2007) and terminating their parental rights. We affirm.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 The respondent minors in this case fall within the protections of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (Act) (25 U.S.C. 1901 through 1923 (2010)). The older children, N.L. and D.L., are members of the Fort Peck Sioux Indian tribe. K.L. is also eligible for membership. Karrie is also affiliated with the Fort Peck Sioux. David is not affiliated with a tribe. In October 2011, the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation moved to intervene in the proceedings. The trial court granted the motion to intervene, upon finding each child an "Indian child" as defined by the Act (25 U.S.C. 1903(4) (2010)).
¶ 5 In March 2011, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship regarding the children. The petitions alleged three counts of neglect based on an injurious environment
(705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2010)), asserting Karrie used the children to help commit retail theft.
¶ 6 At the May 2011 adjudicatory hearing, Howard Knight, a loss-prevention specialist with Kmart, testified on January 12, 2011, he observed Karrie, David, and three children enter the men's department. The adults were browsing in the graphic T-shirt area. Each parent pushed a shopping cart with one child in it; the third child was walking. Knight watched Karrie fold five T-shirts, place them in a cart, and place her daughter on top of the shirts. Karrie tucked a sixth shirt into her daughter's coat. The five exited the store without paying for the merchandise.
¶ 7 At the close of the hearing, the trial court found the children neglected. The court found the parents placed themselves in a situation that could result in their arrest and leave the children without care.
¶ 8 In April 2013, the State petitioned for findings of unfitness and the termination of parental rights on behalf of N.L., D.L., and K.L. The State alleged the following regarding both parents: respondent parents (1) failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the children's welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2010)); (2) are depraved (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i) (West 2010)); (3) failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis of the children's removal in the first nine-month period following the neglect adjudication (May 20, 2011, to February 20, 2012) (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2010)); (4) failed to make reasonable progress toward the children's return during the initial nine-month period after the neglect adjudication (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2010)); (5) failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of their children during the nine-month period after
the initial nine-month period following the neglect adjudication (February 20, 2012, to November 20, 2012) (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(iii) (West 2010)).
¶ 9 The fitness hearing was held in May 2014. The State first called Amy Trees, a child-protection investigator at the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), to testify. Trees was the caseworker for the family from August 2009 to June 2011. Trees testified a case involving the family was initially opened in August 2009 due to inadequate supervision.
¶ 10 Trees explained goals for respondent parents included maintaining a crime-free lifestyle and individual counseling. Karrie participated in counseling, but she was not making progress. She admitted using marijuana and testing positive for such use. Karrie was referred to Prairie Center for substance-abuse treatment. Karrie completed parenting classes and substance-abuse treatment. David completed the court-ordered psychological evaluation and received individual counseling, but he was not making progress during counseling. David completed the parenting course. Both parents cooperated in meeting with Trees "[f]or the most part until towards the end of [her] involvement."
¶ 11 During the time Trees worked with the family, the children remained in the home. The decision to remove the children from the home was made while Trees was the caseworker. DCFS made the decision because the issues had not been successfully addressed despite over 18 months of DCFS involvement.
¶ 12 Cherylanda Trice, a child-welfare advanced specialist for DCFS, testified she was the caseworker for the family from June 22, 2011, until February 28, 2014. When Trice was assigned to the case, respondent parents were participating in individual therapy. They were also attending couples therapy.
¶ 13 Trice testified, because of environmental issues in the family home, she arranged a homemaking service. There were roaches in the home. The family had difficulty keeping the home clean.
¶ 14 According to Trice, respondent parents were required to maintain a crime-free lifestyle. They did not satisfy this goal. Both were arrested in August 2011 for retail theft. Trice believed there were two retail-theft arrests that month, but she could not recall details. In December 2011, David was arrested for residential burglary. The criminality of the parents "was a very big deal." Both parents stated they understood their children could not be returned to them if they were incarcerated. Their mental-health issues were significant, and they were failing to address those issues as well.
¶ 15 Trice testified the children had been removed from the home before she began as the family's caseworker. The visitation schedule permitted weekly, one-hour supervised visits with all three children and both parents. The parents attended all of the visits. They had "some struggles," however. Often, David wanted to discuss the case during the visits. He had to be redirected to engage with his children. On occasion, David would become upset with Trice and get loud. Karrie had a habit of "babying" N.L., once attempting to spoon-feed her, even though she could feed herself. Karrie also seemed to favor N.L. over the boys.
¶ 16 According to Trice, from August to December 2011, Karrie was "minimally" cooperative with DCFS. Trice explained when David was not incarcerated and the two were together, Karrie would defer to David "a lot" during conversation. When Trice called their residence, Karrie would often give the phone to David and let him communicate with her regarding what both were to do for services.
¶ 17 Trice testified as of November 2011, Karrie was rated "satisfactory" on her goal of individual counseling. Karrie made an effort to engage in therapy at that time. By the end of December 2011, however, neither parent successfully completed any services.
¶ 18 Trice stated, in the period of August to December 2011, the parents visited the children one hour each week at the DCFS office. In December 2011, the visits were moved to the family home only because the DCFS office was small, not due to any improvement by the parents. The level of supervision did not change. Trice opined there were no behavioral problems by the parents during these visits.
¶ 19 According to Trice, by February 2012, nine months after the adjudicatory hearing, the children could not safely return to either parent. Trice opined neither parent made sufficient progress. Neither parent addressed their mental-health issues consistently, and both continued to engage in criminal activity. As of December 2011, several charges against David were pending. David spent a few weeks in jail during December 2011. He was able to continue his counseling after his incarceration.
¶ 20 During the first six months of 2012, the parents continued to cooperate with DCFS. There were, however, issues with their phone. At times, the phone would be disconnected. David rode his bike to the office to meet with Trice when he was unable to call her. From December 2011 through June 2012, David was not arrested for any crime.
¶ 21 As of June 2012, according to Trice, the progress of the parents was rated unsatisfactory. David was unable to engage in therapy services during his incarceration in December 2011. David was to go to Crosspoint Human Services (Crosspoint) for an assessment and for medication monitoring. David's participation at Crosspoint was minimal, but he was
participating. David had also been prescribed medication. Karrie's progress in therapy was minimal. She failed to address her mental-health issues. Karrie was to follow-up with Crosspoint for an assessment and for medication monitoring. Karrie went to Crosspoint for the initial assessment, but she failed to follow up as recommended. Karrie also had pending criminal charges.
¶ 22 Visitation remained the same as in earlier service plans. Visits were not increased because the parents' progress in therapy services was inconsistent or minimal. The parents continued to require "a lot of redirection" regarding what was appropriate to do with or say to the children. Trice provided a situation when, in February 2012, during a visit at the family home, David wanted to discuss increasing visitation. He also wanted to know why his father could not attend the visits. When Trice told him they could discuss the matter at a different time, David became upset and continued trying to discuss those topics until he was warned the visit would terminate if he did not stop raising the issues.
¶ 23 Trice testified David was sent to prison in June 2012. After his sentencing, Trice contacted the prison to see if she could get services for David. Prison officials told her she could not register David for services, as he had to take care of it himself and seek certificates of completion. While imprisoned, David completed anger-management courses and attended some education classes and a substance-abuse class. Trice did not know whether the certificates sent by David satisfied the requirements of the client-service plan. Trice did not know the curriculum of the classes and the prerequisites for certification. There was no requirement in the client-service plan regarding substance abuse.
¶ 24 According to Trice, after David went to prison on June 1, 2012, Karrie's level of
participation in services declined. She stopped communicating with Trice, and her participation in therapy became inconsistent. This inconsistency in attendance resulted in an unsuccessful discharge from therapy. In the period of June to December 2012, Trice attempted to visit Karrie at the family home. Sometimes Trice was successful in seeing Karrie. Trice continued to send letters to Karrie's home and call the number Karrie provided. During this time, other individuals resided in the home. Karrie did not provide the names of those individuals to Trice so a criminal background search could be done. During this time period, there were several instances when the visitation monitor and the children arrived and others were present. The monitor and the children had to wait outside for those individuals to leave. Twenty minutes of the one-hour visits would be wasted on getting the individuals out of the home. Karrie did not attend all of the visits. At times, Karrie failed to timely confirm the visits. At other times, the monitor arrived but Karrie was not home.
¶ 25 According to Trice, during this time period, she became concerned over Karrie's health. Karrie appeared to have lost a significant amount of weight quickly. Anonymous reports had been made to DCFS asserting Karrie was engaged in drug use. Trice had multiple conversations with Karrie regarding these allegations. Trice asked Karrie to sign consent forms and participate in an assessment at Prairie Center. Karrie declined. On another occasion, Trice asked Karrie to participate in a drug screen. Karrie stated she did not have identification, so she did not do the screen.
¶ 26 Trice testified, in December 2012, Karrie's home was raided. A methamphetamine lab was found in her basement. Karrie was evicted. Trice did not believe Karrie had been criminally charged. One of Karrie's roommates was manufacturing
methamphetamine. Karrie stated she asked the individual to stop, but that individual did not. After Karrie's eviction, Karrie did not provide Trice another address. Karrie reported living with a friend in a trailer.
¶ 27 In early 2013, according to Trice, the children's visits were changed to "sibling visitation" after the children were upset by Karrie's inconsistent attendance. The sibling visits occurred twice each month for two hours. Karrie was invited. If she showed, it was "a bonus."
¶ 28 Trice testified after December 2012, Karrie had been arrested for possession of "heroin or some type of drug." Karrie was incarcerated in June 2013. Trice estimated the projected parole date as sometime in 2015. Pursuant to a court order, Karrie was not offered visitation while in prison. Karrie's prison counselor once called Trice on Karrie's behalf.
¶ 29 According to Trice, David visited with the children three times during the period of June to December 2012. The visits occurred at the prison monthly, beginning in October. Trice believed these visits traumatized the children. Trice opined the children were young, with "significant developmental delays." It was difficult to explain what the children would experience going to the prison, such as being around the officers with their guns, enduring physical searches, and passing through big doors that slammed shut. During each visit, David had to be reminded constantly about what he could or could not do. Officers became involved to reprimand or redirect David. After the visits, the children made some statements about not wanting to end up in jail like their father. David's visits with the children terminated in February 2013 on the court's order.
¶ 30 Trice testified as of November 2012, David had not successfully completed any services. David's projected parole date was July 2014. While in prison, David sent letters,
birthday cards, books, songs, coloring books, and drawings to the children. David put some items on a Christmas list for the children and a church sent gifts to the children pursuant to that list.
¶ 31 On cross-examination, Trice testified the parents completed parenting classes during the intact case, before Trice was involved. David earned a high-school diploma and attended welding classes at Danville Area Community College. David had some special-education classes during his schooling. At times, he would repeatedly ask the same questions. Trice answered the questions and repeated them to ensure David understood.
¶ 32 Trice testified she made determinations as to progress regarding David's individual therapy based on reports from David's counselor. David continued to see his counselor until his June 1, 2012, incarceration. During the time David was not incarcerated, he was employed.
¶ 33 According to Trice, during David's visits with the children, he played games with them. He interacted appropriately with them. When Trice and David spoke throughout the case, David asked about the children. He asked how the children were doing in the foster home and asked about the foster parents. His questions were appropriate. During prison visits, David counseled his children to follow the law and not end up in prison. During the prison visits, David would get up from the table several times to get items such as pencils and cards. It was when he stood the officers corrected his behavior. The gifts David had sent to the children were appropriate.
¶ 34 Trice testified Karrie completed high school and "a little bit of college" at a community college. Regarding the November 29, 2011, service plan, Karrie's progress regarding
her communications with DCFS was satisfactory. Karrie was rated satisfactory as to her mental-health treatment as well. This rating was based on the fact Karrie completed her assessment and signed releases. In regard to parenting, Trice reported Karrie was not making satisfactory progress in using age-appropriate discipline and in monitoring the children. Karrie had been participating in therapy and had made "significant strides." In that same period, Trice observed changes in the home. By November 2011, the homemaker had been working with the family and the home was clean.
¶ 35 Regarding the plan that ended May 30, 2012, Trice rated Karrie's progress on housekeeping as satisfactory. The homemaker service was to be discontinued. Karrie was also found to be more consistent with her parenting of the children. Karrie used appropriate discipline and appropriate boundaries. Regarding domestic-violence issues, Karrie was to address those matters with her therapist.
¶ 36 Leta Pepper testified she was the counselor for Karrie from April 2010 until October 2012, when Pepper closed the case due to lack of attendance. Counseling sessions were scheduled weekly. Karrie "had a significant number of no-shows and some cancellations." Karrie attended 80 out of 117 scheduled sessions.
¶ 37 According to Pepper, a goal of therapy for Karrie was to stabilize her mood and address her dysthymia, a low-grade, persisting depression. Another goal was to strengthen Karrie's parenting skills. A third was to work on Karrie's relationship with her husband. The fourth goal was to stop Karrie's criminal behavior.
¶ 38 Pepper opined Karrie's dysthymia diagnosis contributed to Karrie's lack of motivation and energy. Pepper stressed "very often" she and Karrie would work on a "very
simple thing that needed to be done," like making a telephone call to obtain a list of babysitters. Pepper would have to push Karrie for some time, "anywhere from a month to five months," to get Karrie to take a simple action.
¶ 39 Pepper believed Karrie struggled with her relationship with David. Karrie did not find the relationship satisfying, but she stayed anyway. Karrie had difficulty in considering approaching life independently, without someone to rely upon. Karrie consistently denied any domestic violence and did not report any incidents. Karrie, however, reported incidents where David threatened providers or threatened to run away. Couples counseling was not yet an option. Karrie indicated if couples counseling occurred, she would say whatever she needed to say to placate David. Pepper believed couples counseling would not be productive until Karrie was able to be open with David.
¶ 40 Pepper testified 18 months into DCFS's involvement, Karrie continued to denounce DCFS and failed to take responsibility for the lack of supervision of her children. Pepper did note Karrie became more honest about her criminal behavior once it was shown to her how her criminal behavior impacted her children's ability to feel safe and loved.
¶ 41 According to Pepper, Karrie made progress after she became employed. Near the end of 2011, when David was incarcerated, Karrie saw she could earn a paycheck and began to feel more competent. Karrie began to reach out socially. Then Karrie lost her job, and she became discouraged and lonely. Despite deciding she would not post bond for David, she did so. Karrie's case was closed in October 2012, after Karrie missed at least three appointments and failed to respond to letters asking her to contact Pepper.
¶ 42 Pepper averred Karrie, as best she knew, was "sporadic" in her compliance with
her medication. At times, Karrie reported taking her medication, but she would report on other occasions she had not been taking her medication over the same time period.
¶ 43 Lois Weeks, the Indian Child Welfare Act case manager for the Assiniboine-Sioux tribe in Montana, testified she maintained contact with DCFS during the case and relied on its expertise regarding services offered. Weeks opined the children's return to Karrie's custody would likely cause emotional or physical damage to the children. Weeks based this decision on the length of time the children had been separated from David during the case and during the three years Karrie would be imprisoned. Weeks testified her decision was limited to Karrie, because Karrie was a tribal member. Weeks knew nothing about David.
¶ 44 Autumn Jackson, an advanced-child-welfare specialist with DCFS, testified she became the caseworker for D.L. and N.L. on February 28, 2014. Jackson did not notify David she was the caseworker until she saw him at a court hearing on April 3, 2014. Autumn knew David was in prison and that he provided certificates of completion for anger management and substance abuse. David sent cards, letters, and other items for the children.
¶ 45 According to Jackson, Karrie entered the Department of Corrections (DOC) in 2013. Her parole date was August 25, 2015. Karrie was not engaged in services with DCFS. She had not seen her children since her imprisonment. She had sent one book to the children, but no other gifts, letters, or money. Karrie had not called Jackson to ask about her children. Jackson acknowledged she had not contacted Karrie since taking over the case.
¶ 46 David testified on his own behalf. He was 37 years old. He went to prison on June 1, 2012, for retail theft. He was eligible for parole on July 17, 2014. While in prison, David completed anger-management and substance-abuse classes. The anger-management class
taught inmates how to deal with anger that arises during childcare. Both classes lasted eight weeks. David also completed a session of "Lifestyle Redirect," which addressed drugs and alcohol and taught inmates about nutrition. There were no parenting classes available to David. He registered for one, but there was no one available to teach it.
¶ 47 According to David, his plan upon release from prison was the return of his children. His job at Montana Mike's, where he had worked for 12 years, was waiting for him. David admitted several convictions for thefts. None of his offenses involved violence.
¶ 48 Regarding visits, David testified the children visited him in prison once a month from October 2012 through February 2013. The visits went "really, really well." David played games with his children. They talked. A couple of times, David stood to get a pencil or another game and was reprimanded by the correctional officers for standing. None of the prison visits were cut short due to his behavior. David wrote his children once per month. He also sent books and drawings.
¶ 49 According to David, he did not know Jackson was the new caseworker. Trice attended the visits in the home when the children visited there. David acknowledged the testimony about his "getting agitated" at times and raising his voice. David averred he had a loud voice. During the home visits, David played games with his children and watched a little television. None of the home visits were shortened because of anything he did. David completed court-ordered parenting classes in 2010.
¶ 50 David testified he started going to Crosspoint in 2009 to see a therapist. He also received medication there to address his "hearing voices." David went to Crosspoint daily until his imprisonment. Beginning around October 2009, David began meeting with Ron Eltzeroth for
individual counseling. David missed only one session.
¶ 51 David testified, in November or December 2011, he was incarcerated for retail theft. He remained incarcerated for two weeks. While in jail, Eltzeroth visited David once. Therapy continued after David's release and until David's imprisonment on June 1, 2012.
¶ 52 On cross-examination, David testified the family became involved with DCFS in 2009. The children were placed in foster care in June 2011. Neither David nor Karrie were incarcerated at that time. In August 2011, David was arrested. In December 2011, David was arrested for burglary. David acknowledged the client-service plan mandated he not violate the law.
¶ 53 The trial court began by finding the Act applied to this case because eligible Native American children were involved in termination-of-parental-rights proceedings. The court observed the Act required the State to prove, in part, parental unfitness beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the State met its burden on all allegations of parental unfitness against respondent parents.
¶ 54 In June 2014, the best-interests hearing was held. The trial court indicated it received the best-interests report submitted by DCFS, which recommended the termination of respondent parents' parental rights. According to the report, DCFS received a hotline report alleging inadequate supervision on August 9, 2009. The children were found outside naked and unsupervised. Police were dispatched to the home. They found Karrie asleep. She was arrested for endangering the health and lives of her children. Three days later, the police were called to the residence after the children were found outside naked and unsupervised. When the oldest child entered the home to tell Karrie the police were there, Karrie cursed at the children and told
them to get out of the house and let her sleep. An intact case was opened for services on August 12, 2009. In January 2010, the parents admitted the charges, and the court entered an order of continuance under supervision. In April 2011, following the January 2011 retail theft, a new neglect petition was filed. Following the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings, DCFS was granted custody and guardianship of the children.
¶ 55 The report further stated David was imprisoned since June 2012 for theft and for residential burglary. David's projected parole date was July 17, 2014. Karrie was incarcerated in June 2013 until her September 18, 2013, transfer to the DOC. She was serving concurrent four-year sentences for a 2011 retail-theft conviction and for a 2013 conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Karrie was eligible for parole in August 2015. Karrie was homeless from December 2012 until her incarceration. A court order restricted visitation at the prison.
¶ 56 According to the report, nine-year-old N.L. resided in the same traditional foster home where she was placed when she first entered care. N.L. was healthy, and she felt safe in her foster home. Her behaviors had stabilized. N.L. earned good grades in school. She was bonded to her foster family, which was willing to provide permanency through adoption.
¶ 57 DCFS reported eight-year-old D.L. resided in the same foster home since August 2013. His behaviors stabilized during foster placement. His foster placement, however, was unwilling to adopt him. The placement was willing to provide him a home until an adoptive placement was found. A family interested in adopting D.L. and his younger brother K.L. was identified. The prospective family, upon receiving the history of the boys, was interested in meeting them. The prospective parents and the boys met at a restaurant in May 2014. They ate together and played games. The prospective parents chose to move to the next step toward
adoption. A second meeting was scheduled. Overnight visits would follow, if that meeting went well. The potential foster mother was a special-education teacher. She believed the boys did not have any behaviors they could not handle. D.L. received special-education services. His grades were good.
¶ 58 At the hearing, Jackson testified on behalf of the State. Jackson was the caseworker for N.L. and D.L. N.L. had not visited with David in over a year. Regarding K.L. and D.L., Jackson testified their interaction with the prospective adoptive family went "very well." The first meeting occurred at McDonald's. K.L. experienced a behavioral "meltdown" in the restroom because he wanted to be with his brother. The prospective parents handled the situation very well. D.L. and K.L. also went with the prospective adoptive parents to a children's museum and participated in other activities. The prospective adoptive parents were "gung ho" about the adoption and had painted rooms for D.L. and K.L. They were willing to participate in sibling visitation with N.L.
¶ 59 On cross-examination, Jackson testified the boys were placed in separate foster homes after both were taken off their medications by their doctor. K.L. had more behavioral issues and the foster parents asked he be removed from their home. Since that time, K.L. has been put back on his medicine.
¶ 60 Angela Manes, case manager at Camelot Care Center in Springfield, testified she was the case manager for K.L. K.L. had been placed in a specialized foster home since April 2014. K.L. attended counseling once a week and was taking Ritalin. K.L. had a significant speech impediment and attended special-education classes. He had been provided an aide to work with him in the classroom. K.L. talked a lot about his brother. Manes opined it was very
important K.L. be placed with D.L.
¶ 61 The trial court found the termination of parental rights to be in the best interests of the children and granted the State's petitions. These consolidated appeals followed.
¶ 62 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 63 A. Parental Fitness
¶ 64 Before parental rights may be terminated, a trial court must find the parent unfit. A parent is unfit if the State proves, by clear and convincing evidence, one of the grounds listed in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2010)). In re A.L., 409 Ill. App. 3d 492, 499, 949 N.E.2d 1123, 1128 (2011). Because the trial court, during a hearing on fitness, views witnesses and their demeanor, the decisions of that court on fitness are entitled to great deference. Id. at 500, 949 N.E.2d at 1129. We will not overturn a parental-fitness finding unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence, meaning "the correctness of the opposite conclusion is clearly evident from a review of the evidence." In re T.A., 359 Ill. App. 3d 953, 960, 835 N.E.2d 908, 913 (2005).
¶ 65 The parties do not dispute the trial court's conclusion each child in this case is an "Indian child" as defined and governed by the Act. 25 U.S.C. 1903(4) (2012). The parental rights of an Indian child may not be terminated absent "a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child." 25 U.S.C. 1912(f) (2012). Respondent parents do not argue the trial court violated the terms of the Act. Respondent parents contend, however, the facts did not support a finding of unfitness beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 66 The trial court found respondent parents unfit on multiple grounds listed in section 1(D): they (1) failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the children's welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2010)); (2) are depraved (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i) (West 2010)); (3) failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis of the children's removal in the first nine-month period following the neglect adjudication (May 20, 2011, to February 20, 2012) (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2010)); (4) failed to make reasonable progress toward the children's return during the initial nine-month period following the neglect adjudication (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2010)); and (5) failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of their children during the nine-month period after the initial nine-month period following the neglect adjudication (February 20, 2012, to November 20, 2012) (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(iii) (West 2010)).
¶ 67 We begin with respondent parents' argument the trial court erred in finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, they failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the children's welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2010)). David emphasizes his efforts to comply with services and the progress he made. David contends, despite his incarceration, his attempts to secure visits and his letters, cards, drawings, and presents to his children establish a reasonable degree of interest, concern, and responsibility for his children. Karrie contends she was cooperative with services and compliant until her imprisonment. Karrie contends her efforts were stymied by her imprisonment and it thus cannot be said she was an unfit parent.
¶ 68 We are mindful that consideration of whether a parent's conduct establishes reasonable interest, concern, or responsibility as to a child's welfare involves consideration of the
parent's particular circumstances. See In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill. 2d 255, 278-79, 562 N.E.2d 174, 185 (1990). For example, when prison visits are "somehow impractical," a court may consider whether letters, gifts, and calls to those providing care to the child "demonstrate a reasonable degree of concern, interest and responsibility, depending upon the content, tone, and frequency of those contacts under the circumstances." Id. at 279, 562 N.E.2d at 185. A "parent may be found unfit for failing to maintain either interest, or concern, or responsibility; proof of all three is not required." In re Richard H., 376 Ill. App. 3d 162, 166, 875 N.E.2d 1198, 1202 (2007).
¶ 69 In this case, we find no error in the trial court's decision both parents failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to their children. DCFS had been involved with the family since August 2009. The children were removed from the family home after respondent parents were involved in a retail theft in January 2011. Despite DCFS's involvement and the repeated emphasis on the need to follow a crime-free lifestyle to secure the return of the children, both parents continued their criminal behavior and placed themselves in situations, such as imprisonment, where they could neither care for nor provide for their children over a long period of time. David committed crimes in August and December 2011, and he was separated from his children as of June 1, 2012. After David's June 2012 imprisonment, Karrie stopped complying with therapy services. In addition to her 2011 offenses, Karrie committed a drug offense in 2013. The conduct by both parents shows the absence of concern, interest, and responsibility as to their children under both the clear-and-convincing and reasonable-doubt standards.
¶ 70 Having found no error in the trial court's finding of unfitness on this ground, we
need not consider respondent parents' remaining arguments regarding fitness. Only one statutory ground must be proved to establish a parent as unfit. In re Donald A.G., 221 Ill. 2d 234, 244, 850 N.E.2d 172, 177 (2006).
¶ 71 B. The Best Interests of the Children
¶ 72 After a trial court finds a parent unfit, the court shifts its focus to the interests of the children in securing "a stable, loving home life." In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 364, 818 N.E.2d 1214, 1227 (2004). Factors a court should consider at this stage include the child's safety and welfare, the development of the child's identity, the child's background and ties, the uniqueness of each child and family, and the preferences of those available to care for the child. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2012). At the best-interests stage, a parent's desire to maintain a relationship with his or her child yields to the child's interests. D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 364, 818 N.E.2d at 1227. A court may terminate parental rights only if it finds the State proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, termination is in the best interests of the child. Id. at 366, 818 N.E.2d at 1228. This court will not overturn a decision terminating parental rights unless the trial court's decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. T.A., 359 Ill. App. 3d at 961, 835 N.E.2d at 914.
¶ 73 Respondent parents argue the trial court erred in terminating their parental rights. David emphasizes he visited his children regularly until his incarceration and he showed affection during those visits. David further emphasizes the fact he sent cards, drawings, and letters to his children from prison. David contends a strong bond exists between his children and him. Karrie asserts she had a strong bond with her children and visitation was suspended only after the trial court's order. Karrie contends it was not in her children's best interests to be
separated from her when the children would not be placed in the same foster home.
¶ 74 The best-interests determination is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. DCFS became involved with this family in August 2009. The children were removed from the parents' home in June 2011. Despite DCFS's attempts to get respondent parents the services and support they needed, the parents separated themselves from their children. Since February 2013, the children had not visited with David. Since June 2013, the children had not seen Karrie. David's release date was scheduled for July 2014; Karrie's projected release date was in August 2015. In over three years since the children's removal from the family home, the parents were no closer to providing the children safety and security than on the day the children were removed. In contrast, the children were improving in foster care. N.L. had an adoptive placement, and D.L. and K.L. were several steps into the process of finding an adoptive home. K.L. was then in a specialized placement, but the process was ongoing to place D.L. and K.L. together. Moreover, the record establishes the prospective parents of all three children were committed to continuing sibling visitation, allowing the children to maintain their bonds with each other.
¶ 75 We find no error in the trial court's decision to terminate respondent parents' parental rights.
¶ 76 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 77 We affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 78 Affirmed.