In re A.J

49 Citing cases

  1. People v. Timothy B. (In re River B.)

    2024 Ill. App. 5th 240045 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    In the first hearing, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is an "unfit person" as defined by the Adoption Act. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 30 (citing In re A.J., 269 Ill.App.3d 824, 828 (1994)); 750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2022). If the trial court finds that the parent is unfit, the case proceeds to a second hearing where the State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is in the child's best interest that the parent's rights be terminated.

  2. People v. Michelle H. (In re MAL. H.)

    2024 Ill. App. 5th 231276 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    In the first hearing, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is an "unfit person" as defined by the Adoption Act. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 30 (citing In re A.J., 269 Ill.App.3d 824, 828 (1994)); 750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2020). If the trial court finds that the parent is unfit, the case proceeds to a second hearing where the State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is in the child's best interest that the parent's rights be terminated.

  3. People v. Jessica S. (In re Alexis S.)

    2024 Ill. App. 5th 230652 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    In the first hearing, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is an "unfit person" as defined by the Adoption Act. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 30 (citing In re A.J., 269 Ill.App.3d 824, 828 (1994)); 750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2020). If the trial court finds that the parent is unfit, the case proceeds to a second hearing where the State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is in the child's best interest that the parent's rights be terminated.

  4. People v. Jeffery B. (In re A.B.)

    2023 Ill. App. 5th 230513 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    In the first hearing, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is an "unfit person" as defined by the Adoption Act. In re Za. G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 30 (citing In re A.J., 269 Ill.App.3d 824, 828 (1994)); 750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2020). If the trial court finds that the parent is unfit, the case proceeds to a second hearing where the State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is in the child's best interest that the parent's rights be terminated.

  5. People v. Marvin D. (In re D.D.)

    2023 Ill. App. 5th 230514 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    Id. (citing In re A.J., 269 Ill.App.3d 824, 828 (1994)); 750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2020). If the trial court finds that the parent is unfit, the case proceeds to a second hearing where the State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is in the child's best interest that the parent's rights be terminated.

  6. People v. Hoyer (In re P.H.)

    2018 Ill. App. 4th 180077 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    ¶ 38 Therefore, we begin by considering whether it is "clearly evident," from the evidence in the record, that the State failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent met at least one of the statutory definitions of an "unfit person" the State set forth in its petitions. In re A.J., 269 Ill. App. 3d 824, 828 (1994). The trial court found all cited grounds of unfitness to be proved.

  7. People v. David W. (In re I.W.)

    2018 Ill. App. 4th 170656 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    The unfitness of a mentally ill parent is grounded on the parent's inability to discharge parental responsibilities, not the parent's inability to control her conduct." In re A.J. , 269 Ill. App. 3d 824, 828–29, 207 Ill.Dec. 152, 646 N.E.2d 1239, 1242 (1994).¶ 107 The court then commented on the length of time taken by the State to assist the respondent in that case, noting the "State agency's goal was to reunite respondent with her children.

  8. In re Cornica

    351 Ill. App. 3d 557 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 27 times
    In Cornica, the State's case rested almost entirely on the testimony of one clinical psychologist who opined that the parents, who had I.Q.s of 69 and 74, were unable to successfully and safely care for their children.

    However, a low IQ does not automatically translate into an inability to discharge parental responsibilities. See In re A.J., 269 Ill. App. 3d 824, 827-28 (1994) (section 1(D) (p) of the Act does not envision that all parents with a "designated mental disability" will have their parental rights terminated; instead, the Act affects only those parents who cannot discharge their parental responsibilities due to those disabilities and whose inability to do so will extend beyond a reasonable time). Moreover, based on the evidence before us, we are not convinced that respondents' behavior during the observation session or their low test scores necessarily conveys an inability to parent.

  9. In re Davonte L

    298 Ill. App. 3d 905 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 23 times

    A finding of parental unfitness must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re A.J., 269 Ill. App.3d 824, 828, 646 N.E.2d 1239 (1994). A reviewing court will not reverse the trial court's finding of parental unfitness unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence, meaning that the opposite result must be clearly evident from a review of the record.

  10. In re R.C

    195 Ill. 2d 291 (Ill. 2001)   Cited 127 times
    Noting that when considering a vagueness challenge a court considers not only the language, but the legislative objective and the evil it is designed to remedy

    See, e.g., In re A.J., 269 Ill. App.3d 824, 828 (1994) ("[c]ourts do not, and indeed should not, lightly terminate parental rights or summarily dismiss a mentally ill person's rights"). Nevertheless, once a court has found by clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit, the state's interest in protecting the child is sufficiently compelling to allow the termination of parental rights.