Opinion
4-22-0007
06-03-2022
In re Z.P., a Minor v. Andre J., Respondent-Appellant. The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee,
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Sangamon County No. 19JA19 Honorable Karen S. Tharp, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices DeArmond and Harris concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
HOLDER WHITE, JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court's fitness finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 In September 2021, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of respondent, Andre J., as to his minor child, Z.P. (born August 4, 2018). Respondent mother is not a party to this appeal. Following a fitness hearing, the trial court found respondent unfit. In December 2021, the court found it was in Z.P.'s best interest to terminate respondent's parental rights.
¶ 3 Respondent appeals, arguing the trial court's fitness findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.
¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 5 A. Initial Proceedings
¶ 6 In February 2019, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging Z.P. was neglected in that (1) he was not receiving proper care including necessary educational and medical services, (2) respondent mother failed to make a proper care plan, and (3) his environment was injurious to his welfare due to respondent mother's mental health issues pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a), (b) (West 2018)). In April 2019, a supplemental petition was filed, alleging Z.P. was neglected because (1) he was not receiving medical services necessary for his well-being, and (2) his environment was injurious to his welfare due to respondent mother's failure to cooperate with intact services. In May 2019, respondent mother admitted Z.P. was neglected because his environment was injurious to his welfare due to respondent mother's failure to cooperate with intact services. The trial court entered an order finding Z.P. neglected. That same month, the court entered a dispositional order (1) finding Z.P.'s parents unfit and unable to care for the minor, (2) making the minor a ward of the court, and (3) placing custody and guardianship of the minor with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
¶ 7 In October 2019, respondent contacted the caseworker and requested a paternity test because he was notified he could be Z.P.'s father. In January 2020, the paternity test confirmed respondent was Z.P.'s father. That same month, respondent completed an integrated assessment and began visits with Z.P.
¶ 8 B. Termination Proceedings
¶ 9 In September 2021, the State filed a petition for the termination of parental rights. In relevant part, the petition alleged respondent (1) failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minor's welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020)); (2) failed to make reasonable efforts toward the return of the minor within the nine-month period from November 2, 2020, to August 2, 2021, after adjudication (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2020)); (3) failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor within the nine-month period from November 2, 2020, to August 2, 2021, after adjudication (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2020)); and (4) was unable to discharge parental responsibilities and there was sufficient justification to believe the inability to discharge parental responsibilities would extend beyond a reasonable time period (750 ILCS 50/1(d)(p) (West 2020)).
¶ 10 1. Fitness Hearing
¶ 11 In December 2021, the matter proceeded to a hearing on the petition for termination of parental rights. We summarize only the evidence necessary for the resolution of this appeal.
¶ 12 a. Dr. Judy Osgood
¶ 13 Dr. Judy Osgood, a licensed clinical psychologist, testified she performed a parenting capacity assessment and a psychological evaluation on respondent in May 2021. Dr. Osgood received a referral for a psychological assessment and a parenting capacity assessment, as well as the case history, the integrated assessment, the family service plan, and Z.P.'s medical records. The parenting capacity assessment was to determine respondent's ability to safely and responsibly parent and to identify any specific needs or risk factors, such as mental health, substance abuse, intellectual deficits, and cognitive deficits.
¶ 14 Dr. Osgood administered psychological tests, intelligence testing, achievement testing, and adaptive behavior assessment, and she observed respondent with Z.P. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale was a comprehensive individually administered intelligence test. The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test provided a measure of reading comprehension, math, and spelling. Dr. Osgood testified,
"The reason I included that with [respondent] is because he has borderline intellectual functioning. He was in special education. He talked about having a learning disability, and due to the concerns reported about his difficulty with memory, his difficulty comprehending his son's medical needs and difficulty understanding how to do that, I felt it would be helpful to get a measure of his reading comprehension to see if that was possibly a contributing factor to his difficulties."
The adaptive behavior assessment was a comprehensive assessment of several areas of adaptive functioning. According to Dr. Osgood, the parenting capacity assessment she conducted was generally accepted in her profession.
¶ 15 As a result of her assessment, Dr. Osgood diagnosed respondent with (1) major depressive disorder-recurrent, (2) cannabis use disorder-severe, (3) adolescent antisocial behavior, and (4) borderline intellectual functioning. Dr. Osgood asked respondent about the circumstances that led to his son being taken into custody and his own history and mental-health history. According to Dr. Osgood, respondent acknowledged he had several psychiatric hospitalizations when he was an adolescent, but he was unable to provide specific dates or time frames for those hospitalizations. Respondent was hospitalized for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideations, and homicidal ideations. Respondent "had a severe history of violence and aggression as a juvenile." Respondent had several arrests as a juvenile, was in the Juvenile Detention Center, and was expelled from high school for inciting a riot. According to Dr. Osgood, respondent had been prescribed medication for his mental health issues, but respondent reported he no longer took those medications.
¶ 16 Dr. Osgood asked respondent if he was engaged in counseling, substance abuse treatment, and parenting classes as required by the service plan. Respondent was not in counseling, denied any current mental health issues, and minimized his substance abuse issues. According to Dr. Osgood, respondent said "he had been doing good" with substance abuse treatment and "his urine was coming back cold," which was inconsistent with the report Dr. Osgood received from the substance abuse professional regarding respondent's participation. Respondent reported his coping skills included working, listening to music, walking, and reading the bible.
¶ 17 Respondent admitted he smoked marijuana on a daily basis and he started as an adolescent. According to Dr. Osgood, people with chronic mental disorders such as depression or anxiety often have a chronic substance abuse problem. Dr. Osgood testified, "High amounts of cannabis has been shown to induce depression. It can induce psychosis. It certainly can interfere with a person's mental functioning." Dr. Osgood opined it was important for a person like respondent who had a chronic history of mental health problems and substance abuse to have a treatment plan. Dr. Osgood testified it was important to work with professional counselors to make a plan for sobriety and for relapse prevention.
¶ 18 Dr. Osgood testified respondent's full scale intelligence quotient (IQ) was 73, which was consistent with borderline intellectual functioning. According to Dr. Osgood, respondent scored very low on verbal comprehension and extremely low on working memory. Dr. Osgood found respondent's working memory score significant because reports indicated respondent struggled with remembering things. Dr. Osgood testified respondent scored a 70 on the reading comprehension component of the individual achievement test, which was the equivalent of second-grade level comprehension. Respondent had third-grade level math skills. According to Dr. Osgood, these skills were especially important with a child like Z.P. with specific severe allergies because it "would be very important for his caregiver to be able to completely comprehend and understand and learn how to accurately log his food intake, make decisions about nutrition, work with doctors, [and] follow doctors' orders."
¶ 19 Dr. Osgood described self-direction or executive functioning as a person's ability to meet their daily living needs, including working, keeping a schedule, picking children up from school on time, making and attending medical appointments, and meeting medical and dietary needs. On a scale from 1 to 19 with an average score of 10, respondent's score for self-direction was a 2. Respondent scored a three for the area identified as work, which indicated respondent likely struggled to maintain consistent employment. Respondent also scored below average for social skills and his general adaptive composite score was in the borderline range.
¶ 20 According to Dr. Osgood, she observed a visit between respondent and Z.P. that was also attended by a caseworker. The caseworker brought a backpack the foster parent packed with food, snacks, and drinks because Z.P. required specific nutrition and food. Z.P. had complex allergies and if he ingested any ingredient he was not supposed to, his allergies were life threatening. Dr. Osgood testified the foster parent worked closely with a specialist to determine what Z.P. was allergic to and there was a list of acceptable and unacceptable foods.
¶ 21 Dr. Osgood testified respondent had recently started a new job at Burger King and lived in a shelter. Based on respondent's scores on the intelligence tests, the adaptive functioning scale, his mental health diagnoses, his untreated mental health issues, and Z.P.'s medical issues, Dr. Osgood concluded respondent was unable to safely and responsibly parent Z.P. According to Dr. Osgood, the severity and combination of respondent's risk factors affected his ability to comprehend Z.P.'s medical condition and he was unable to meet Z.P.'s medical needs or to work closely with specialists. Dr. Osgood concluded respondent presented with chronic mental disorders and cognitive deficits, and his inability to parent Z.P. would extend beyond a reasonable time limit. Dr. Osgood acknowledged respondent was attentive and loving during the visit she observed, and he appeared to have a bond with Z.P. While respondent did fine during the visit she observed, Dr. Osgood noted the visit was "a supervised, structured, time-limited setting where he didn't have to assume primary responsibility for feeding his son."
¶ 22 b. Alyssa Williams
¶ 23 Alyssa Williams, a caseworker with the Family Service Center, testified she had been the caseworker for this case since June 2020. Williams testified it was her responsibility to facilitate and supervise visitation, provide respondent services, and inform respondent of Z.P.'s medical appointments and allergy action plan. In October 2020, Williams met with respondent to discuss the services he needed to complete to regain fitness. Respondent's service plan included cooperating with the agency, maintaining contact with the agency, visits with Z.P., a substance-abuse assessment and treatment, regular drug tests, mental-health treatment, parenting classes, maintaining stable housing, and maintaining stable income. Williams referred respondent to Memorial Behavioral Health (Memorial) for mental-health treatment in August 2020. Respondent completed mental health assessments at both Memorial and Southern Illinois University (SIU), and both recommended continued treatment. Williams never received any information that respondent followed through with treatment. Williams referred respondent to Gateway in January 2021 and the Family Guidance Center in August 2021 for substance-abuse treatment. Respondent was discharged unsuccessfully from Gateway, and Williams did not receive a notification that respondent was successfully discharged from mental-health treatment. According to Williams, respondent was attending Gateway three days a week and was unsuccessfully "discharged for tampering results."
¶ 24 In March and August 2021, Z.P. had two appointments for monitoring Z.P.'s allergies. According to Williams, Z.P. had to go to Peoria regularly for food challenges to be introduced to new foods to see if he was allergic, and the allergy action plan required keeping track of what foods he could and could not have. Williams gave respondent notice of the appointments so he could learn about Z.P.'s allergies. Respondent attended the March 2021 appointment, but Williams had to drive him to Peoria because he could not provide his own method of transportation. According to Williams, the foster parent was chasing Z.P. around the waiting room, while respondent was on his phone. Respondent did not exhibit any interest in Z.P.'s allergies.
¶ 25 At an April 2021 administrative case review, respondent was rated unsatisfactory for cooperation with the agency, substance-abuse treatment, and mental-health services. In November 2020, respondent sent Williams a text message seeking resources for housing. Approximately one week later, respondent told Williams he was homeless and needed to leave town. Respondent also told Williams he was working at Walmart and a business called The Smoke Shop, but respondent never provided proof of income. During the relevant period, respondent attended 8 of the 19 drug tests Williams scheduled for him.
¶ 26 Williams discussed mental health services with respondent regularly, and she always received the same answer when she asked about counseling. Williams testified, "That he forgot the time, didn't know that it was on Zoom, technical issues as to why he was missing his counseling." Williams referred respondent for counseling "a couple of times," but that required respondent to respond to attempts to contact him. According to Williams, respondent would occasionally respond, but the counseling service had difficulty contacting him and ended up discharging him. Respondent completed a psychiatric assessment, but he never followed through and completed his mental-health services.
¶ 27 In March 2021, Williams referred respondent for a parenting capacity assessment. When asked why she made that referral, Williams testified, "Based on his psychiatric hospitalizations, it seemed like he was delayed a little bit. He wanted to know about his bonding with the child, if he was the right fit." During the relevant time period, respondent regularly attended visits, but he always texted Williams "the day before or week of asking if he had a visit Thursday." Respondent never demonstrated an ability to remember a visit even though Williams told him it was a standing visit and he should put it in a calendar on his phone. Williams testified she never felt comfortable returning the child to respondent. When asked to explain, Williams testified, "He was still testing positive for THC [(tetrahydrocannabinol)]. He didn't demonstrate proper parenting. He didn't attend his medical appointments, never finished mental health, lots of reasons, didn't have stable housing, didn't have stable income. He was always bouncing around."
¶ 28 Williams acknowledged respondent completed parenting classes and an anger management class, although she did not receive documentation of the latter. Respondent had housing as of June 2021, but Williams had not visited the apartment because of the goal change. Respondent sent Williams his work schedule for The Smoke Shop, but she testified one schedule was "just not going to cut it when we send him for drops." According to Williams, respondent kept in contact, but had some periods where she would not hear from respondent for "a couple of weeks." Williams acknowledged respondent was able to support himself by working different jobs, attended monthly service plan meetings, signed the necessary consents, and completed two mental health assessments. Although respondent was able to support himself, his income was never stable because "[h]e was always bouncing around. He would stay at a place a week, two weeks and move on to the next one."
¶ 29 When asked if there were problems with respondent not understanding Z.P.'s allergies, Williams testified, "He didn't ask me anything. If he seemed concerned or didn't understand something, he didn't say, 'Can you explain this more?' He did want to learn about his allergies. He did ask that." According to Williams, respondent asked if he could give Z.P. a Lunchable, and Williams told respondent Z.P. could not have Lunchables due to cross-contamination with the dairy items Z.P. was allergic to. However, respondent brought a Lunchable to the following visit.
¶ 30 Williams identified a client progress report for substance abuse treatment from Family Service Center dated October 13, 2021. The report indicated respondent had attended 4 individual sessions and 11 group sessions. The report further indicated that respondent felt his marijuana use was not an issue. The report stated respondent tested positive for THC on June 5, 2021, August 25, 2021, and September 8, 2021. Respondent tested negative on August 9, 2021. The report stated respondent would "be discharged successfully depending on caseworker approval of his use of the marijuana."
¶ 31 The trial court admitted a report from SIU over the State's objection. Williams testified she had not gotten a copy of the report from SIU. The report was dated February 9, 2021, and indicated respondent did not meet the criteria for the SIU Trauma Recovery Center or SIU therapy or psychiatry "due to his lack of severe symptoms and his current ability to work with a counselor on a weekly basis." The report further stated respondent denied past trauma. Finally, the court admitted a report from Memorial dated June 8, 2021, stating respondent participated in an intake session, demonstrated a medical necessity for services, and was cooperative and forthcoming.
¶ 32 c. Respondent
¶ 33 Respondent testified he found out he was Z.P.'s father in early 2020 after he took a paternity test. Respondent j oined the case and engaged in an integrated assessment. According to respondent, he was open with Dr. Osgood about his mental health and juvenile history and his marijuana use. However, respondent did not discuss his history in detail because he did not think it was necessary. Respondent testified he no longer smoked marijuana daily and had not smoked it daily for approximately one month. Before that, respondent smoked marijuana once a day in the morning. Respondent testified he purchased the marijuana legally, but then testified he was not legally allowed to purchase marijuana at his age without a medical marijuana card. Respondent testified he had spoken with his doctor a few days before about getting a medical marijuana card.
¶ 34 In June 2020, respondent signed a one-year lease for an apartment in Springfield. Respondent testified he worked multiple jobs and had been able to support himself for the last two years. Respondent ran a lawn care service over the summer and currently worked at Dollar General. Respondent completed parenting classes and anger management classes. Respondent testified he bought a vehicle in April 2021. However, the vehicle did not have valid license plates. Although respondent had a driver's license, it was suspended for running a red light.
¶ 35 Respondent testified he brought a Lunchable to a visit with Z.P. and the person supervising the visit said Z.P. could not eat it. Respondent denied bringing a Lunchable to the next visit and denied knowing a Lunchable was on the list of food Z.P. could not eat. Respondent testified he was aware of Z.P.'s allergies and respondent thought he could eat the turkey in the Lunchable. Respondent testified he also fed Z.P. cold turkey and veggie straws, until someone told him the veggie straws were cross-contaminated. Respondent testified, "So, basically, I couldn't feed my son, because what they thought was good for him, but I knew what my son was eating, there was no breaking out, there was no rashes, because if it was-you know, if you eat something, you break out automatically." When asked what Z.P. was allergic to, respondent stated, "I hear he's allergic to dogs, grass, peanuts, milk, soy and some potatoes he can't eat, garlic. It's multiple things that he can't eat."
¶ 36 Respondent acknowledged he missed two of Z.P.'s medical appointments in September 2021. Respondent acknowledged he previously struggled with anxiety and depression. When asked if he would know what to do in the event that Z.P. got sick, respondent testified he would take Z.P. to the hospital. When asked if he understood Z.P.'s allergies to be life threatening, defendant stated, "Well, by you saying life threatening, it can't really be life threatening if he overcome some of his allergies and he be able to eat pork and stuff, what they say he be allergic to, so basically it take time, and I think whenever he grow up, he will break out of some of those allergies." However, respondent then testified Z.P.'s allergies were life threatening.
¶ 37 Respondent testified he was psychiatrically hospitalized in 2017 when he was 16 years old. According to respondent, he was in the Juvenile Detention Center and he "played crazy" so he would be sent to Lincoln Prairie. Respondent testified he was 17 years old when Z.P. was born. When he spoke with Dr. Osgood in May 2021, he was living in a youth shelter because his mother "was getting frustrated over the case, because [he] wasn't going and stuff." Respondent testified he completed a mental health assessment at SIU and they did not recommend services. Respondent testified he had been engaged in monthly counseling sessions at Memorial for approximately three months. When he was released from his psychiatric hospitalization at Lincoln Prairie, respondent was prescribed medication. Respondent testified he occasionally took the medication, but he did not like the way it made him feel so he eventually stopped taking it.
¶ 38 d. The Trial Court's Ruling
¶ 39 The trial court began by noting that it was not placing a great deal of weight on whether respondent had transportation to the doctor's appointments. The court noted the February 2021 report from SIU and expressed its concern that respondent had been psychiatrically hospitalized three times, had been arrested as a juvenile five times, had been to the Juvenile Detention Center at least once, and his child was in DCFS care, yet the report indicated respondent denied past trauma. The court also noted the substance abuse report from October 2021 that indicated respondent's successful completion conditioned on the caseworker's approval of his marijuana use. The court noted "the caseworker cannot approve marijuana use by a 20-year-old because that's illegal." The court expressed concern that the substance abuse report indicated respondent had not documented any triggers for relapse, a specific relapse prevention plan, or any support to maintain sobriety. Additionally, respondent tested positive for THC in June, August, and September 2021.
¶ 40 The trial court stated respondent needed a treatment plan and to work with professionals to make a plan for sobriety and relapse prevention. The court noted respondent's unsuccessful substance abuse treatment at Gateway where he was not truthful about his marijuana use and tampered with his drug tests. The court acknowledged respondent completed parenting and anger management classes. However, the court also noted respondent was unsuccessfully discharged from Memorial.
¶ 41 The trial court acknowledged respondent attended a doctor's appointment in March 2021, but spent the majority of the appointment on his phone. The court stated the foster parent tried to wrangle Z.P. as he ran around the waiting room and respondent did not step up to the parenting responsibility. Respondent also failed to demonstrate any interest at the doctor's appointment. The court noted respondent was marked unsatisfactory for all of his tasks at the April 2021 administrative case review.
¶ 42 The trial court also noted respondent brought inappropriate food to visits and did not appear to understand the concept of cross-contamination. The court noted the respondent's testimony that Z.P. could have the turkey meat in a Lunchable demonstrated that he did not understand the cross-contamination issue because it was packaged with foods Z.P. was allergic to. The court also stated that respondent testified that Z.P. would outgrow his allergies, but there was no evidence that Z.P. would outgrow all of his allergies. The court found respondent's position very concerning.
¶ 43 The trial court noted that respondent's testimony about the vehicle he purchased corroborated things Dr. Osgood noted in her diagnosis. The court stated, "He purchased a vehicle in April of '21. He was asked: So you now have a car that you can use to get to appointments and classes, yes. Okay, then he later testifies, well, no, he can't really drive it because he doesn't have a license nor does the car even have plates. *** So he has a car that he can't even use, yet he stated could use it to get to classes and appointments." The court also pointed to respondent's conflicting testimony that he purchased marijuana legally followed immediately by his testimony that he could not purchase marijuana legally.
¶ 44 The trial court noted that, although respondent testified he recently began counseling and quit using marijuana, during the relevant time period respondent had not completed counseling and was still using marijuana. The court stated it was concerned about respondent's marijuana use not only because he was 20 and could not legally use it, but because of Dr. Osgood's testimony that someone with respondent's mental health diagnosis should not use marijuana. The court noted respondent had been diagnosed with mental illness that would prevent him from being able to parent in the reasonable future. The court stated that even if respondent's mental health issues were situational, he would not outgrow his low scores on the IQ test or the self-direction assessment. The court found the State proved respondent was unable to discharge his parental responsibility and there was sufficient justification to believe that inability would extend beyond a reasonable time, noting Dr. Osgood answered in the affirmative to those points. The court noted respondent was able to play with Z.P. for an hour visit, but that was not the same as full-time parenting of a young child with significant allergies. The court further stated, "When asked what [Z.P.'s] allergies were, [respondent] was able to list some but then he just said he has multiple allergies. So he wasn't able to list what all of those were."
¶ 45 As to reasonable progress toward returning the child to his care, the trial court found the State had proved respondent unfit by clear and convincing evidence. During the relevant time period, the court found respondent had failed to engage in mental health and substance abuse services. The court noted the mental health and substance abuse services were interrelated and noted the October 2021 report that indicated respondent had not identified triggers or a relapse prevention program. With regard to the subjective question of whether respondent made reasonable efforts toward the return of the child, the court noted respondent had engaged in counseling and stopped using marijuana after the nine-month period set forth in the petition. The court stated, "The fact that he's saying he has now stopped cannabis use shows me that even subjectively he could have done those things in that nine-month period. Unfortunately for him, waited until after that nine-month period to do those things." With regard to the allegation that respondent failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility, the court found respondent was reasonably interested and concerned, but he failed to maintain a reasonable degree of responsibility for Z.P.
¶ 46 2. Best-Interest Hearing
¶ 47 Following a best-interest hearing, the trial court laid out the statutory best-interest factors and noted Z.P.'s foster placement was the only home he had ever known. The court did not doubt respondent's love for Z.P. but noted that it was one thing to say he was going to care for Z.P. and another thing to actually do it. The court acknowledged respondent was in counseling and had stopped using marijuana but noted the case had gone on for a significant period of time and Z.P. needed permanence. The court noted Z.P.'s need for stability and continuity of relationships favored termination of parental rights because he had been in his foster placement almost his entire life, and the foster placement provided for his everyday needs and significant medical issues. Moreover, the court noted the foster mother's willingness and desire to adopt. The court could not say that it was close to being able to place Z.P. with respondent. Accordingly, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that it was in Z.P.'s best interest to terminate respondent's parental rights.
¶ 48 This appeal followed.
¶ 49 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 50 On appeal, respondent asserts the trial court erred by finding him unfit because he (1) failed to maintain a reasonable degree of responsibility as to the minor's welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020)); (2) failed to make reasonable efforts toward the return of the minor within the nine-month period from November 2, 2020, to August 2, 2021, after adjudication (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2020)); (3) failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor within the nine-month period from November 2, 2020, to August 2, 2021, after adjudication (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2020)); and (4) was unable to discharge parental responsibilities and there was sufficient justification to believe the inability to discharge parental responsibilities would extend beyond a reasonable time period (750 ILCS 50/1(d)(p) (West 2020)).
¶ 51 In a proceeding to terminate parental rights, the State has the burden of proving parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. In re Jordan V., 347 Ill.App.3d 1057, 1067, 808 N.E.2d 596, 604 (2004). In making such a determination, the court considers whether the parent's conduct falls within one or more of the unfitness grounds described in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2018)). Evidence of unfitness based on any ground enumerated in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2018)) is enough to support a finding of unfitness, even where the evidence may not be sufficient to support another ground. In re C.W., 199 Ill.2d 198, 210, 766 N.E.2d 1105, 1113 (2002). A reviewing court will not overturn the trial court's finding of unfitness unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Jordan V., 347 Ill.App.3d at 1067. The trial court's decision is given great deference due to "its superior opportunity to observe the witnesses and evaluate their credibility." Id.
¶ 52 In this case, the State alleged respondent was unfit on four grounds: he (1) failed to maintain a reasonable degree of responsibility as to the minor's welfare; (2) failed to make reasonable efforts toward the return of the minor within the nine-month period from November 2, 2020, to August 2, 2021; (3) failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor within the nine-month period from November 2, 2020, to August 2, 2021; and (4) was unable to discharge parental responsibilities and there was sufficient justification to believe the inability to discharge parental responsibilities would extend beyond a reasonable time period. The trial court found respondent unfit based on the allegations in the State's petition.
¶ 53 On appeal, respondent contends the trial court's finding of unfitness was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We may affirm on any basis in the record, and we need not review all the grounds for a finding of unfitness if we uphold the trial court's findings as to one ground of unfitness. See In re D.H., 323 Ill.App.3d 1, 9, 751 N.E.2d 54, 61 (2001). As we find the trial court's finding as to reasonable progress dispositive, we begin there.
¶ 54 The trial court's finding that respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor during the period from November 2, 2020, to August 2, 2021, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Reasonable progress is measured by an objective standard that considers the progress made toward the goal of returning the child to the parent. In re M.A., 325 Ill.App.3d 387, 391, 757 N.E.2d 613, 615 (2001). Specifically, reasonable progress includes a parent's compliance with service plans and court directives, in light of the condition that gave rise to the removal of the child, and in light of other conditions which later became known and which would prevent the court from returning custody of the minor to the parent. In re C.N., 196 Ill.2d 181, 216, 752 N.E.2d 1030, 1050 (2001).
¶ 55 Here, the evidence established that, during the relevant nine-month time period, respondent failed to make reasonable progress on his mental health and substance abuse treatments. Dr. Osgood diagnosed respondent with (1) major depressive disorder-recurrent, (2) cannabis use disorder-severe, (3) adolescent antisocial behavior, and (4) borderline intellectual functioning. According to Dr. Osgood, respondent acknowledged he had several psychiatric hospitalizations when he was an adolescent for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideations, and homicidal ideations. Respondent "had a severe history of violence and aggression as a juvenile." Respondent had several arrests as a juvenile, was in the Juvenile Detention Center, and was expelled from high school for inciting a riot. According to Dr. Osgood, respondent had been prescribed medication for his mental health issues, but respondent reported he no longer took those medications. According to Dr. Osgood, respondent was not in counseling and denied any current mental health issues.
¶ 56 Although he completed initial mental health assessments at Memorial and SIU, Williams testified defendant failed to follow through on the recommendations for further treatment. Williams testified respondent made excuses when she asked whether he attended his counseling sessions. Respondent was eventually discharged from mental health services after failing to maintain adequate contact with the service providers.
¶ 57 According to Dr. Osgood, respondent said "he had been doing good" with substance abuse treatment and "his urine was coming back cold," which was inconsistent with the report Dr. Osgood received from the substance abuse professional regarding respondent's participation. Respondent told Dr. Osgood his substance abuse treatment was going well but also admitted he smoked marijuana on a daily basis. According to Dr. Osgood, people with chronic mental disorders such as depression or anxiety often have chronic substance abuse problems. Dr. Osgood testified, "High amounts of cannabis has been shown to induce depression. It can induce psychosis. It certainly can interfere with a person's mental functioning." Dr. Osgood opined it was important for a person like respondent who had a chronic history of mental health problems and substance abuse to have a treatment plan. Dr. Osgood testified it was important to work with professional counselors to make a plan for sobriety and for relapse prevention.
¶ 58 Williams referred respondent to Gateway in January 2021 and the Family Guidance Center in August 2021 for substance-abuse treatment. Respondent was discharged unsuccessfully from Gateway, and Williams did not receive a notification that respondent was successfully discharged from mental-health treatment. According to Williams, respondent was attending Gateway three days a week and was unsuccessfully "discharged for tampering results."
¶ 59 The October 2021 report from the Family Service Center indicated respondent had attended 4 individual sessions and 11 group sessions. The report further indicated that respondent felt his marijuana use was not an issue. The report stated respondent tested positive for THC on June 5, 2021, August 25, 2021, and September 8, 2021. Respondent tested negative on August 9, 2021. The report stated respondent would "be discharged successfully depending on Caseworker approval of his use of the marijuana." As the trial court noted, the caseworker did not approve of his use of marijuana because it was illegal for him to use it under the age of 21. Again, Dr. Osgood testified it was particularly important for a person with respondent's mental health diagnoses not to use marijuana.
¶ 60 Although respondent engaged in monthly counseling sessions approximately three months before the fitness hearing, this was not within the nine-month period set forth in the petition. Respondent further asserts he quit using marijuana approximately one month before the hearing, which was also not within the nine-month period in the petition. Respondent asserts that, even though he failed to make progress on his mental health and substance abuse services, it is more important to focus on the progress he did make by completing parenting classes, cooperating with DCFS, participating in visitation, participating in a substance abuse assessment, participating in semi-regular drug tests, and maintaining stable housing and income. The record contradicts respondent's assertion that he maintained stable housing during the nine-month period. Respondent did sign a lease in June 2021, less than two months before the end of the nine-month period. Prior to that, he was living in a youth shelter after getting into a disagreement with his mother. Respondent also argues that he participated in semi-regular drug testing and notes he admitted to smoking marijuana. The October 2021 report confirmed he continued to test positive for THC during the relevant nine-month period, and Williams testified he attended 8 of 19 drug tests she scheduled for him. This does not demonstrate reasonable progress on his substance abuse services.
¶ 61 While we commend respondent on the progress he made on some of his services, we cannot say the trial court's ruling that respondent failed to make reasonable and substantial progress toward the return of the child was against the manifest weight of the evidence where the record shows respondent failed to follow through on mental health and substance abuse treatment. These services were critical, particularly given respondent's mental health history.
¶ 62 Additionally, the trial court made findings regarding respondent's comprehension of Z.P.'s allergies. The record shows Z.P. had severe allergy problems, and the trial court concluded respondent did not demonstrate an adequate understanding of these allergies. Specifically, the court noted its concern that respondent did not understand the issue of cross-contamination and believed Z.P. would outgrow his allergies. Respondent argues he eloquently articulated Z.P.'s allergies in his testimony. However, the trial court specifically addressed this testimony in making its ruling, stating, "When asked what [Z.P.'s] allergies were, [respondent] was able to list some but then he just said he has multiple allergies. So he wasn't able to list what all of those were." We find respondent's characterization of his testimony unpersuasive given the trial court's superior opportunity to observe the witnesses and make credibility determinations. Jordan V., 347 Ill.App.3d at 1067.
¶ 63 In sum, respondent failed to follow through on mental health services and substance abuse services. The record demonstrates respondent continued to test positive for THC throughout the relevant time period and failed to adequately comprehend the nature and severity of Z.P.'s allergies to the point that he was no longer allowed to bring food to visits. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the trial court's finding that respondent failed to make reasonable progress was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Respondent does not challenge the trial court's best interest findings. Because we have upheld the trial court's findings on one ground of unfitness, we need not address the court's other findings. In re D.H., 323 Ill.App.3d at 9. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
¶ 64 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 65 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
¶ 66 Affirmed.