Find Legal Information

1 June 2000

JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH delivered the opinion of the court:

In August 1998, the trial court of Champaign Countyfound respondent Nancy Starks unfit, and in September 1999, thetrial court terminated her parental rights. Respondent appeals,arguing that (1) the trial court's findings that she (a) failedto make reasonable progress toward the return of her children and(b) failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditionsthat led to the removal of her children were against the manifestweight of the evidence; and (2) its decision to terminate herparental rights was an abuse of discretion. We vacate and remandwith directions.

I. BACKGROUND

In July 1996, the State petitioned for adjudication ofwardship of E.B., born July 1, 1993, and J.B., born November 21,1994, and alleged, in pertinent part, that they were (1)neglected because their environment was injurious to theirwelfare in that the environment exposed them to domestic violenceand excessive corporal punishment (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West1996)) and (2) abused because their mother created a substantialrisk of physical injury to the minors (705 ILCS 405/2-3(2)(ii)(West 1996) (miscited in State's neglect petition as section 2-3(2)(i)). Following hearings held in September and November1996, the trial court found E.B. and J.B. to be neglected minorsand made them wards of the court. The trial court gaveguardianship to the Department of Children and Family Services(DCFS) and temporary custody to respondent's grandmother. OnDecember 3, 1996, the court entered its written dispositionalorder.

D.B. was born on December 9, 1996, and DCFS took herinto protective custody. In December 1996, the State filed asupplemental petition for adjudication of wardship of D.B. andalleged, in pertinent part, that she was a neglected minorbecause her environment was injurious to her welfare (705 ILCS405/2-3(1)(b) (West 1996)) due to respondent's failure to correctthe conditions that resulted in the prior adjudication ofneglect. The trial court held a shelter-care hearing and gavetemporary custody of D.B. to respondent's grandmother. Followingan adjudicatory hearing in March and a dispositional hearing inApril 1997, the trial court found D.B. to be a neglected minor,made her a ward of the court, awarded guardianship to DCFS, andplaced D.B. in the temporary custody of respondent's grandmother. On April 4, 1997, the court entered its dispositional order.

In May 1998, the State filed a supplemental terminationpetition. Count I of the supplemental petition alleged thatrespondent was unfit due to her failure to make reasonableprogress toward the return of the minors within 12 months of theadjudication of neglect. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m) (West Supp. 1997)(however, at the time the petition was filed, the statute said 9months). Count II alleged that respondent was unfit due to herfailure to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions thatwere the basis for removal of the minors. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(West Supp. 1997).

In May 1998, at the first appearance, respondentappeared and the trial court informed her of the nature of theproceedings and allegations against her. In July 1998, the trialcourt held a fitness hearing. After hearing testimony andarguments of counsel, the trial court found that the State hadproved by clear and convincing evidence that respondent was unfiton both statutory grounds. After a dispositional hearing inAugust 1999, the trial court found that it was in the children'sbest interests that respondent's parental rights be terminated. Respondent appeals.

II. ANALYSIS

Respondent maintains on appeal that the trial court'sunfitness findings were against the manifest weight of theevidence. In determining Starks to be unfit, the record isunclear regarding what evidence the circuit court considered andthe time period within which that evidence occurred. This isimportant because the Supreme Court of Illinois has recently heldthat when reasonable efforts or progress are at issue, the plainlanguage of section 1(D)(m) requires that the relevant period oftime under this provision, in which the parent's efforts orprogress must be assessed and measured, is the nine-month periodfollowing the adjudication of guardianship. In re D.L., 191 Ill.2d 1, 10, ___ N.E.2d ___, ___ (2000). Although the supreme courtin D.L. did not do so explicitly, that decision effectivelyoverruled our decision in In re K.B.J., 305 Ill. App. 3d 917,922, 713 N.E.2d 253, 257 (1999), wherein we concluded that thetime period only referred to the reasonable progress ground, notto the reasonable efforts ground.

Because the record is unclear as to whether the circuitcourt examined events outside this time frame, we vacate thecircuit court's adjudication of Starks' unfitness and remand withdirections to review the evidence presented to determine Starks'fitness only by reference to the nine months immediatelyfollowing the adjudication, i.e., as to E.B. and J.B., eventsoccurring from December 3, 1996, to September 3, 1997; as toD.B., events occurring from April 4, 1997, to January 4, 1998. Because of our ruling, we need not address respondent's argumentconcerning the termination of her parental rights.

Vacated and remanded with directions.

COOK, P.J., and McCULLOUGH, J., concur.