" 29 U.S.C. 794(a). ¶ 72 The State and public guardian contend respondent forfeited this claim, asserting that, to avoid forfeiture, an ADA claim must be raised well before a termination hearing. ¶ 73 Generally, an issue is procedurally defaulted when a respondent "fail[s] to raise this issue in the trial court." In re Tamera W., 2012 IL App (2d) 111131, ¶ 29 (citing In re M.W., 232 Ill. 2d 408, 430 (2009) (stating that forfeiture principles requiring an objection at trial to preserve an error applies to proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act). See In re Jeanette L., 2017 IL App (1st) 161944, ¶ 16 (the respondent, in appealing the termination of her parental rights, forfeited her claim that the services provided did not reasonably accommodate her disability under the ADA because she did not raise this claim at any point during the proceedings below). ¶ 74 Here, although it does not appear that respondent raised an ADA claim with DCFS earlier in the case before termination proceedings commenced, she did, in fact, present her ADA argument at her unfitness hearing.

"It is well established that a failure to comply with an imposed service plan and infrequent or irregular visitation with the child may support a finding of unfitness under *** section[ ] (b)." In re Jeanette L., 2017 IL App (1st) 161944, ¶ 18, 69 N.E.3d 918 (citing In re Konstantinos H., 387 Ill.App.3d 192, 204, 899 N.E.2d 549, 559 (2008)).

" In re Jeanette L., 2017 IL App (1st) 161944, ¶ 18, 69 N.E.3d 918. ¶ 37 In this case, the evidence presented at the fitness hearing supports the trial court's finding that respondent was an unfit parent in that he failed to maintain a reasonable degree of responsibility as to the minor's welfare.

¶ 91 Our courts have repeatedly held, albeit in the context of parental termination proceedings, that the ADA does not apply because termination proceedings do not constitute "services, programs or activities" as set forth by the ADA. In re Jeanette L., 2017 IL App (1st) 161944; see also In re S.R., 2014 IL App (3d) 140565, ¶ 28. The rationale has been that nothing in the language of the ADA suggests that an appropriate remedy for an ADA violation is the reversal of a juvenile court's order regarding the termination of parental rights.

"It is well established that a failure to comply with an imposed service plan and infrequent or irregular visitation with the child[ren] may support a finding of unfitness under both sections (b) and (m)." In re Jeanette L. , 2017 IL App (1st) 161944, ¶ 18, 410 Ill.Dec. 373, 69 N.E.3d 918.¶ 54 De Groh testified that she met with respondent on October 13, 2017, and informed him that he needed to complete a mental health assessment and a substance abuse assessment.

Rika forfeited review by failing to object during the adjudicatory hearing. See In re Jeanette L., 2017 IL App (1st) 161944, ¶16. ¶ 36 Forfeiture aside, section 2-18(4)(c) of the Act states: "Previous statements made by the minor relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect shall be admissible in evidence.

Accordingly, we reject respondent's argument on the basis of forfeiture. See In re Jeanette L., 2017 IL App (1st) 161944, ¶ 16, 69 N.E.3d 918.¶ 25 B. Fitness Finding

Two things prevent us from concluding that the trial court's decision violated the ADA. First, the exercise of judicial process is not in and of itself a "service, program or activity" within the meaning of the ADA. See Disability Rights New Jersey, Inc. v. Comm'r, New Jersey Dep't of Human Servs., 796 F.3d 293, 305 (3d Cir. 2015) (holding that procedural safeguards are not "service[s], program[s], or activit[ies]" within the meaning of the ADA, when they are denied to mentally ill prisoners being forced to take medication); In re Jeanette L., 2017 IL App (1st) 161944, ¶ 17, 69 N.E.3d 918, 922 (holding that "[p]arental rights termination proceedings are not 'services, programs, or activities' that would subject them to the requirements of the ADA" (citations and quotations omitted)). Here, the object of Sandra's challenge is the judicial process that yielded the guardianship over Fred. Because this judicial process is not a "service, program or activity," it cannot violate the ADA.

"Failure to comply with an imposed service plan and infrequent or irregular visitation with the minor may support a finding of unfitness under ground (m)." In re Jaz. R., 2024 IL App (1st) 231947, ¶ 43 (citing In re Jeanette L., 2017 IL App (1st) 161944, ¶ 18). Consequently, we do not find that the trial court's conclusion that Montez J. failed to make reasonable progress was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Failure to comply with an imposed service plan and infrequent or irregular visitation with the minor may support a finding of unfitness under ground (m). In re Jeanette L., 2017 IL App (1st) 161944, ¶ 18. ¶ 44 The trial court adjudicated the children as abused or neglected on November 19, 2019.