Find Legal Information

Docket No. 87519-Agenda 7-September 2000.

In re C.N., A Minor (The People of the State of Illinois,

Appellant, v. Diane N. et al., Appellees).

Opinion filed May 24, 2001.

JUSTICE FITZGERALD delivered the opinion of the court:

Following an evidentiary hearing in the circuit court of KaneCounty, the circuit court found that respondents, Diane N. andMark N., were unfit parents under section 1(D)(m) of theAdoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m) (West 1996)), because theyfailed to make "reasonable progress" toward the return of theirdaughter, C.N., within 12 months of her adjudication as aneglected minor. The circuit court subsequently terminatedrespondents' parental rights to C.N., and respondents appealed.The appellate court reversed, holding that the circuit court'sfinding of unfitness was against the manifest weight of theevidence. Nos. 2-98-0565, 2-98-0674 cons. (unpublished orderunder Supreme Court Rule 23). We reverse the judgment of theappellate court, and affirm the judgment of the circuit courtterminating respondents' parental rights to C.N.

BACKGROUND

On October 17, 1994, the Department of Children and FamilyServices (DCFS) took protective custody of S.S. (born August 2,1990) and her half-sister, C.N. (born May 15, 1994).⁽¹⁾ Two dayslater, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship as toboth minors, naming Diane N. as the minors' mother, and Diane'sreported husband, Marin N., as C.N.'s father. The State allegedthat Diane and Marin physically abused S.S., or allowed suchabuse to occur, and that C.N. was at risk. According to the State'spetition, S.S. was hospitalized with two skull fractures, alaceration to the forehead, and bruises to the head, chest, andbuttocks. The State further alleged that C.N. and S.S. wereneglected in that their environment was injurious to their welfare.

On January 3, 1995, Diane admitted that the minors'environment was injurious to their welfare. As to Diane only, thecourt adjudged S.S. and C.N. neglected. The court found that itwas in the minors' best interests that they be made wards of thecourt, and appointed DCFS guardian. S.S. and C.N. were placedin foster care, but S.S. was later placed in a residential treatmentcenter. The court ordered Diane to cooperate with DCFS and itscontracting agencies; comply with all aspects of the client serviceplan; submit to a substance abuse evaluation and follow allrecommendations; undergo a psychological evaluation and followall treatment recommendations; and complete parenting classes.

On January 31, 1995, the State filed a "petition II" foradjudication. The State alleged that Marin committed aggravatedcriminal sexual assault against S.S.; that C.N. showed signs ofsexual abuse; and that Diane failed to protect S.S. and C.N. fromsexual abuse.

During the course of the circuit court proceedings, the partieslearned that Diane was not divorced from her first husband at thetime she married Marin. Accordingly, Diane's first husband,whom she married in 1990, would have been the presumptivefather of C.N. Amid claims by respondents, however, that Mark,Marin's brother, is C.N.'s father, on August 8, 1995, the circuitcourt ordered paternity testing. The November 1995 test resultsconfirmed that Mark is C.N.'s father. On May 6, 1996, the Statefiled an amended petition for adjudication, and an amendedpetition II for adjudication, naming Marin as C.N.'s uncle andMark as C.N.'s father. Shortly thereafter, Mark filed a petitionseeking a determination of paternity as to C.N. The court ruled onthat petition on May 21, 1996, finding Mark to be C.N.'s father.

On June 5, 1996, Diane and Mark stipulated that S.S. andC.N. were sexually abused by Marin, that S.S. was physicallyabused by Marin, and that Diane caused or allowed such physicalabuse. Accordingly, the circuit court adjudged C.N. a neglectedand abused minor as to both respondents. For a second time, thecircuit court found that it was in the best interest of the minors thatthey be made wards of the court, and again placed guardianship inDCFS.

The circuit court ordered Diane to cooperate with DCFS, itsagents, and the client service plan; begin counseling at SinnissippiCenters and follow all treatment recommendations; continue toparticipate in in-home parent education classes until sheconsistently exhibited appropriate parenting and nurturingbehavior; and cooperate with the psychological evaluation andsexual offenders assessment. The circuit court ordered Mark tocontinue participating in in-home parenting classes until heconsistently exhibited appropriate parenting and nurturingbehavior; participate in a psychological evaluation; participate ina drug and alcohol assessment; participate in a comprehensivesocial assessment; and cooperate with DCFS, its agents, and theclient service plan. Although the circuit court also ordered Markto participate in counseling for sexual offenders, that portion of theorder was stricken and Mark was, instead, ordered to participatein counseling for the family of sexual offenders.

Sixteen months later, on October 7, 1997, the State filed apetition to terminate respondents' parental rights to C.N. The Statealleged, in relevant part, that respondents were unfit under section1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act because they failed "to makereasonable progress towards the return of the child within 12months after an adjudication of neglected minor, abused minor ordependent minor." An evidentiary hearing on the State's petitioncommenced on February 3, 1998. The State called severalwitnesses.

Peggy Everling

DCFS investigator Peggy Everling testified that she respondedto a hot line call on July 11, 1994, informing her that S.S. and C.N.were at risk, and that S.S. had been injured by Marin, the putativefather. At the time of the hot line call, Diane, Marin, and the twominors were living together at the Maple Park Motel. S.S. toldEverling that she had been lying in bed with Marin, became sick,and vomited in the bed. Marin became upset and "whacked" heron the head. When Diane returned home, S.S. told her what hadhappened, and Diane confronted Marin. Marin grabbed a steel pipeand, in the course of trying to hit Diane, hit S.S. in the mouth,chipping her tooth. Diane disputed S.S.'s account of how theinjuries occurred, but told Everling that she was aware that Marinhad a temper and that he had previously hit S.S.

Mark told Everling that he, too, had seen Marin hit S.S. onprior occasions. Mark also witnessed the July 1994 incident, andin response had called the police. Mark signed the complaintagainst Marin in connection with that incident because Dianerefused to do so. Although Mark appeared concerned about thechildren and was cooperative, Everling was concerned that Markhad failed to intervene when Marin became abusive. Diane wasminimally cooperative and appeared more concerned about Marinthan the children. Diane did not want to keep Marin away fromS.S. and C.N. during the DCFS investigation, and posted Marin'sbail following his arrest.

Lynn Appelt

DCFS investigator Lynn Appelt responded to another hot linecall in October 1994, informing DCFS of certain injuries to S.S.Appelt testified that in a telephone conversation on October 17,1994, Diane advised Appelt that Marin was no longer living withher, that Marin was staying with a friend whose name and addressshe could not remember, and that she wanted nothing to do withhim. Diane told Appelt that C.N. was with a baby-sitter, and thatshe wanted to give guardianship of C.N. to her brother.

Investigation by DCFS revealed that C.N. was with Marin atthe baby-sitter's home. Appelt determined that the baby-sitter wasnot an appropriate caregiver in light of the baby-sitter's priorcontact with DCFS due to an injurious home environment. Appelteventually located Diane, Marin, and C.N. at the Oregon, Illinois,home of Diane's father, where Appelt took C.N. into protectivecustody. Appelt later learned that the brother with whom Dianewished to place C.N. had sexually abused Diane, makingplacement with him inappropriate.

Appelt also testified that she spoke to S.S. at her foster homein early November 1994, and observed an injury to the child'sforehead, with 20 to 25 stitches. S.S. told Appelt that she had beenhit on her feet with a stick, that she had been hit with a "Mr. BigStick," and that her mother had slapped her in the face. S.S. alsostated that Marin would leave her and C.N. at home alone, and thatshe had told her mother this was happening. Diane denied slappingS.S., and told Appelt that Marin did not abuse S.S. Diane admittedthat S.S. had been hit and sexually abused, but implicated a formerhusband and other men with whom Diane had been involved.

Appelt testified that she took C.N. into protective custodybecause of the current injuries to S.S., the past history of abuse,Diane's lack of cooperation with DCFS, Diane's lack of judgmentin suggesting placement for the minors with her brother, Diane'sinability to protect her children, and Diane's inability to appreciatethe dangerous situations in which she placed her children. Markhad not been implicated in the abuse and was not a subject ofAppelt's investigation at that time.

Rich Maier

Rich Maier, a DCFS child welfare specialist, testified thatDCFS received another hot line call during November 1994,indicating that S.S. and C.N. had been sexually abused.

Maier drafted the initial client service plan that month, whichwas directed to Diane and Marin. Under the plan, Diane was toobtain a substance abuse evaluation and a psychologicalevaluation; participate in counseling and parenting classes; andobtain and maintain appropriate housing. The permanency goal ofthe initial service plan was "return home." In early February 1995,Maier rated Diane's progress toward this goal satisfactory. Maiertestified that Diane had started counseling with Amy Unterborn atSt. Charles Family Center; she had obtained a substance abuseevaluation; and she was either attending or about to beginparenting classes at the Four C's (Community Coordinated ChildCare). Although the substance abuse evaluation revealed noalcohol or substance abuse by Diane, based on Diane's familyhistory and Diane's own drinking pattern, the evaluatorrecommended alcohol education.

Maier also drafted the February 1995 service plan. By thistime, Mark and Diane had advised Maier that Mark may be C.N.'sfather. The February 1995 service plan, however, was directedonly to Diane and Marin because Mark's paternity was not yetestablished. Under the plan, Diane was required to participate incounseling to examine her role in the removal of her children andto receive the recommended alcohol education. She was alsorequired to participate in parenting classes and set up a stablehousing situation. On his own accord, Mark accompanied Dianeto all six parenting classes at the Four C's, successfully completingthe program.

Tim Rezash

Tim Rezash, an intern at the Ben Gordon Community MentalHealth Center, completed a psychological assessment of Diane inearly 1995. Rezash testified that, normally, parents in Diane'ssituation blame themselves for the abuse of their children and askthemselves what they could have done differently. Diane did notexhibit this behavior. She did not feel responsible in any way forthe abuse of her daughters and did not empathize with them.Rezash did not consider Diane a good candidate for insight-oriented therapy and, instead, recommended behavior andcognitive therapies. His prognosis for success was poor toguarded.

Amelia Apperson

Amelia Apperson, a DCFS child welfare specialist, was theprimary case worker between March 1995 and September 1996. Atthe time she assumed responsibility for the case, Mark and Dianeresided together.

In August 1995, Apperson evaluated Diane's progress withrespect to the February 1995 service plan goal of "return home."Apperson rated Diane's progress unsatisfactory. Apperson testifiedthat Diane was uncooperative and failed to complete tasks andobjectives set forth in the client service plan. Diane failed to attendcounseling on a regular basis, continued to deny any responsibilityfor the abuse of her children, and, notwithstanding her completionof a parenting class, failed to exhibit appropriate parenting skillsduring visits with C.N. Based on Apperson's own observations,and a recommendation from Amy Unterborn, Diane's counselor,Apperson suggested in-home parenting classes involving bothDiane and Mark. Apperson explained to them the specificbehaviors with which she was concerned. Although at this pointpaternity testing had not yet been completed, Mark told Appersonthat he knew he was C.N.'s father. The August 1995 service planwas therefore directed to Diane, Marin, and Mark. In drafting theAugust 1995 service plan, Apperson took into account anassessment of C.N. which indicated that she was developmentallydelayed by six months due to a prior lack of stimulation andnurturing. The plan specified that, during supervised visits, Dianespend more time interacting with C.N., rather than with the visitsupervisor.

Apperson further testified regarding a September 8, 1995,visit by respondents with C.N. at the DCFS office. Apperson'ssupervisor terminated the visit after respondents became visiblyangry in response to a parenting suggestion made by the visitsupervisor. Diane raised her voice and hit a wall outside thevisiting room. Mark commented that it was "bullshit" and a"Gestapo regime." Apperson testified that this visit was the firstin a long line of visits which appeared to cause C.N. great stress.C.N. would cry, bite herself, pull her hair out, and bang her head.

During the period November 1995 to January 1996, Appersonfelt that respondents had failed to make progress toward the goal of"return home." Although Diane consistently attended counselingsessions, the couple's progress in the in-home parenting classes wasinconsistent. In addition, visits with C.N. were still going poorly.

In late February 1996, Apperson rated respondents' progressunsatisfactory. Apperson cited Diane's lack of cooperation withDCFS service providers, her failure to be present for all in-homeappointments, her inconsistent attendance at counseling, herfailure to address the past abuse, her failure to keep rent andutilities current, and her poor judgment in allowing variousindividuals to live with her and Mark. Apperson's writtenevaluation reflected many of the same concerns about Mark.Apperson also testified that respondents failed to complete in-home parenting classes. In the February 1996 service plan,Apperson changed the permanency goal from "return home" to"foster parent placement," but testified that the goal could bechanged at any time, based on the cooperation and progress of theparents.

In March 1996, Apperson had discussions with Markconcerning his plan to obtain custody of C.N. Apperson wasconcerned about Mark's understanding of C.N.'s emotional health.Other than regaining custody, Mark had no plan to deal withC.N.'s emotional needs.

Apperson further testified that sometime during the periodMarch 1996 through May 1996, Amy Unterborn discharged Dianefrom counseling. Diane's attendance was poor and her efforts intherapy were sporadic. Believing that the commute to Unterborn'soffice may have been a problem for Diane, Apperson referredDiane to the Sinnissippi Centers, an agency closer to Diane'shome. Diane did not complete the initial assessment at Sinnissippi,explaining to Apperson that she would not discuss her personallife with a counselor.

Apperson was also concerned about the stability inrespondents' present home because they continued to allow otherpersons to live with them. Diane reported that one of the womenwho lived with them had stolen from her, and that a cousin hadtaken one of respondents' vehicles to Arkansas without theirpermission. Mark also reported an incident in which he discoveredone of the persons who was living with them going through theirbelongings.

Following the circuit court's determination that Mark isC.N.'s father, Apperson did not explore the possibility of returningC.N. to Mark because he continued to live with Diane. Appersonwas also concerned about Mark's judgment and ability to care forC.N. Mark admitted that he had been involved in C.N.'s lifebefore she had been placed in foster care. C.N., however, wasdevelopmentally delayed due to a lack of stimulation andnurturing. In addition, Mark continued to minimize the impact ofthe abuse on C.N. Mark felt that if he simply brought C.N. homeand loved her, she would get better. Apperson explained that C.N.had special needs, requiring "serious therapy, serious structure,serious care."

In August 1996, Apperson evaluated respondents' progressunder the February 1996 service plan. Apperson rated Diane'scooperation and completion of tasks unsatisfactory, citing Diane'sunsuccessful discharge from counseling with Amy Unterborn;Diane's failure to complete the assessment at Sinnissippi Centers;and her failure to advise Apperson at one point that she washomeless. Apperson rated Mark's cooperation unsatisfactory,noting the adversarial role he took with her and his failure to signcertain releases, thus preventing referrals for counseling. Appersonalso rated respondents' progress in demonstrating adequateparenting skills unsatisfactory. Apperson relied on her ownobservations, as well as reports from the visit supervisor and thein-home educator. Apperson testified that during the August 1996administrative case review, as she discussed the reduced visitationschedule with respondents, they became belligerent and thereviewer asked them to leave.

Amy Unterborn

Amy Unterborn, a licensed social worker at TherapeuticSolutions, Inc., an affiliate of St. Charles Family Center, begancounseling Diane individually in November 1994. Unterborntestified that the focus of the counseling was on parenting skillsrelative to establishing a safe environment, anger management,problem solving, and appropriate child development expectations.

From November 1994 to June 1995, Diane missed twoappointments. During this time, Diane had difficulty processingissues involving the creation of a safe environment in the homeand how her actions might impact safety and stability in the home.Diane also did not recognize that her children would suffer long-term consequences due to the abuse.

From June 1995 through July 1995, Diane missed oneappointment. During this period, therapy continued to focus on theestablishment of a safe environment for Diane's children,problem-solving skills, and appropriate child developmentexpectations.

From July 1995 through October 1995, Unterborn hadsessions with Diane and C.N. Unterborn testified that Dianeexpected C.N. to use logic and reason that a child of C.N.'s agewould not possess. Diane expressed her lack of understanding ofC.N.'s special needs, and admitted that she had exposed S.S. andC.N. to an inadequate environment. According to Unterborn, thisunderstanding is the first step in taking responsibility andestablishing new behaviors. During this period, Diane haddifficulty expressing anger in appropriate ways; she did notinternalize the concepts that were worked on in therapy; and didnot demonstrate the skills necessary for a safe environment.Unterborn was also concerned about miscommunication Dianecreated, which frustrated the efforts of professionals to coordinatecare for Diane and her children. Unterborn testified that Diane'sprognosis was guarded.

From October 1995 through January 1996, Diane missed fourappointments, one of which was an excused absence. During thisperiod, Diane's life was chaotic with respect to employment andhousing, and she made no progress toward stability. She was notresponding constructively to daily stressors. Diane also made littleprogress in her ability to empathize with C.N. in that she failed torecognize the impact of the emotional distress stemming from theabuse. Diane did not demonstrate a mature relationship with Markfocused on child rearing. Diane disclosed that she had frequenttransient house guests with whom she had verbal and physicalaltercations. In therapy, Diane focused on her anger at DCFS,rather than focusing on the skills she needed to develop. Diane'sprogress was minimal and the prognosis was guarded.

Between January 1996 and April 1996, Diane had oneunexcused absence and three excused absences. Diane toldUnterborn that she was confident that once her children werereturned to her that they would then be able to get the care theyneeded. Unterborn testified, however, that Diane's home was notstable enough to handle the emotional disturbances that C.N. wasexhibiting. Diane was not able, in therapy, to articulate possibleways of dealing with C.N.'s self-mutilating behavior or instanceswhere C.N. acted out sexually. Diane did not indicate that shecould set limits for C.N. or handle a crisis. Diane also continuedto have relationships with individuals who were adversarial andoften unstable.

In May 1996, Unterborn discharged Diane from therapybecause of her failure to keep the attendance contract. Unterborndid not feel that Diane was making a reasonable effort to get tocounseling. Unterborn testified that Diane had not madereasonable progress, given the length of therapy, and, at discharge,Diane's prognosis remained guarded. According to Unterborn,Diane could have made more progress had she spent more timefocusing on counseling rather than how to manipulate the system.

Patty Klapperich

Patty Klapperich, a homemaker for DCFS, supervised visitsbetween respondents and C.N. during the latter part of 1995.Klapperich testified that Mark generally engaged in the child careto a greater degree than Diane, who would tell Mark what to do.

During a visit on September 8, 1995, Klapperich, who wasinstructed to do parent education during the visits, made severalparenting suggestions regarding the feeding of C.N. Klapperichtestified that Mark became increasingly aggravated and furious.Both Mark and Diane were yelling. A supervisor terminated thevisit. According to Klapperich, C.N. had a difficult time withsubsequent visits, most of which ended early because Diane didnot have the endurance to work with C.N.

Andy Thompson

Andy Thompson, a child care advocate at Sinnissippi Centersin Rochelle, Illinois, testified that DCFS referred respondents forparticipation in the parenting program. Beginning in late August1995, and continuing for a period of about nine months,Thompson worked with respondents once or twice a week in theirhome. Thompson first spoke to respondents by telephone onAugust 30, 1995. When Thompson identified herself, Markbecame angry and told Thompson that DCFS was harassing him.Respondents' dissatisfaction with DCFS came up at almost everysession.

Thompson testified that, overall, respondents were notcooperative and their attendance at the parenting sessions wassporadic. On five or six occasions, respondents were not home. Onapproximately four occasions, respondents were home, but saidthey had forgotten about the session. On other occasions, Dianedid not arrive home until after the session had already started. Onyet another occasion, Diane said her time was limited because shehad an appointment elsewhere. Finally, on one occasion Diane didnot participate because she was asleep on the couch and Mark'sefforts to wake her were unsuccessful. Thompson also testifiedthat one session was delayed by 20 minutes while respondentssearched for jewelry supposedly stolen by a house guest.

According to Thompson, respondents made little progress inthe parenting classes. Although respondents scored high on apretest and understood the book material, they did not put intopractice the concepts they learned. Respondents continued todisplay negative behaviors discussed in prior sessions. Sinnissippiterminated services when respondents moved out of the area.

James Jorgenson

James Jorgenson, owner of Taking Control, a psychologicalcounseling facility, testified that in 1995 DCFS referred Diane tohim to evaluate the degree of bonding between her and C.N.During the assessment, Jorgenson observed very little interactionbetween Diane and C.N. Diane tried to coax a positive reactionfrom C.N., but C.N. became increasingly upset. Jorgenson decidedto terminate C.N.'s involvement and continued the assessmentwith Diane alone; Diane appeared relieved.

Jorgenson testified that Diane displayed little emotion inregard to her children; she focused on what had been done to her,rather than what had been done to them. Diane expressed only aperfunctory concern for the safety of her children and spoke aboutthem as possessions. Jorgenson believed that unresolved issuesfrom Diane's past, including her own abandonment and abuse asa child, and her combative way of dealing with the world, reducedher effectiveness as a parent. He testified that Diane is unable toset limits and boundaries for her children, which impacts herability to protect them. Jorgenson concluded that Diane was notable to deal with C.N.'s needs at that time, and would not be ableto do so in the near future. Jorgenson recommended that C.N. notbe returned to Diane until further rehabilitative measures weretaken, but that if Diane was not cooperative, DCFS shouldconsider pursuing the termination of Diane's parental rights.According to Jorgenson, Diane displayed combativeness andvindictiveness toward DCFS.

Patricia Kozlowski

Patricia Kozlowski, a homemaker with Colton Health Care,worked with respondents from November 1995 to May 1997. Asa homemaker she supervised weekly visits with C.N. andtransported C.N. to visits. Typically, visits took place at a Targetstore or at the park. Although Kozlowski was not to give parentinginstructions, she was required to stop anything that wasinappropriate. Kozlowski testified regarding several visits inwhich respondents engaged, or attempted to engage, in conductshe considered inappropriate. Such conduct by Diane includedgiving C.N. a plastic serrated knife to play with, instead of aplastic spoon, and failing to wash her hands after changing C.N.'sdiaper. Conduct by Mark that Kozlowski considered inappropriateincluded offering C.N. a dirty pacifier and discussing a horrormovie in graphic detail in front of C.N., who was two years old atthe time. Kozlowski also testified that both respondents repeatedlysmoked while holding C.N.; placed food directly on the table orhighchair, instead of using a plate; gave C.N. too much food at onetime, in pieces that were too large; and failed to check C.N. forother marks after noticing red dots on her neck. Kozlowski alsotestified that Diane had ended a visit early because C.N. was"boring" in that she was withdrawn and would not walk or talk.

Jennifer Saleuckyj

DCFS caseworker Jennifer Saleuckyj testified that, inFebruary 1997, she evaluated the August 1996 client service planthat Amy Apperson drafted. Saleuckyj rated the progress ofrespondents unsatisfactory. Respondents did not feel they shouldhave been "indicated"⁽²⁾ and did not see the need for services.Respondents did not participate in any parenting classes fromAugust 1996 to the time of Saleuckyj's evaluation. AlthoughDiane completed a psychological evaluation, it took her fivemonths to do so. Mark was not participating in any counseling,with the exception of an "on-call" service of which DCFS had noinformation, and did not complete alcohol and psychologicalassessments until the latter part of January 1997.

Notwithstanding the unsatisfactory rating in February 1997,Saleuckyj felt that respondents could still work toward regainingcustody of C.N. Saleuckyj created a new service plan with thesame tasks as the August 1996 plan. Based on the issues thatbrought the family to the attention of DCFS, the main componentof the service plan was counseling. Respondents agreed to followthrough on a referral to Family Advocate to address issues of childprotection and how to care for children who have been sexuallyabused. Respondents also agreed to participate in in-homeparenting services.

John Larson

DCFS caseworker John Larson was assigned the case inMarch 1997. In August 1997, he evaluated the service plan ofFebruary 1997. One objective under the plan was that Dianeparticipate in a counseling assessment at Family Advocate. Larsonrated Diane unsatisfactory on this objective, and other objectivesregarding counseling, because Diane had made no attempt toattend the counseling services. Similarly, Larson rated Markunsatisfactory on the objectives of the service plan dealing withcounseling. The only counseling in which Mark was involved wasa telephone counseling service.

Under the service plan, Mark was also required to haveadequate housing for all family members. Larson rated Markunsatisfactory on this objective because respondents' residencehad been found unfit for habitation by the City of Rockford.Larson testified, however, that Mark subsequently obtainedacceptable housing with the help of DCFS. Larson also testifiedthat Mark successfully completed a psychological assessment anda drug and alcohol assessment, and that further services in thisarea were not indicated.

Larson rated respondents unsatisfactory with respect to parenttraining, in that they failed to follow through on Larson's referralto Catholic Charities. Larson was not aware that respondents hadcompleted an academic parenting class. Larson also testified thatrespondents later attended parenting classes at a different serviceprovider, but that the classes were not comparable in depth orlength to the classes at Catholic Charities.

Amy Butt

Amy Butt, an employee of Family Advocate, testified that heragency specializes in the treatment of sexual abuse and offerscounseling to address issues relating to the parenting of a childwho was abused. Through DCFS, respondents were referred toFamily Advocate for an assessment, which requires five sessions.Respondents did not attend any of the five initial sessionsscheduled for them in March and April 1997. Anotherappointment was scheduled in May 1997. Ultimately, the agencyclosed the file without services being provided to respondents.

Elaine Gaither

Elaine Gaither, the parenting coordinator at Catholic Charitiesof Rockford, testified that she received a referral from DCFS toinvolve respondents in parenting classes. Respondents attended anorientation class in July 1997, but failed to attend their firstscheduled class in early August, apparently due to transportationand child care problems. Gaither tried to work with respondents onchild care issues, and tried to accommodate their schedules,switching their class time. She also gave Diane referrals toalternate parenting programs in the community. During onetelephone call in which Diane indicated that she had failed tofollow up on Gaither's recommendation for child care, Dianebecame angry and argumentative. Ultimately, respondents weredischarged from the program for lack of attendance.

The State rested. Respondents each moved for a "directedfinding," which the trial court denied. Respondents did not testify.They, however, called three witnesses.

Elaine Goodwin

Elaine Goodwin, a parent educator at the Four C's, testifiedthat, beginning on January 17, 1995, respondents attended a groupof six parenting classes. The key topics included childdevelopment, parent-child communication, parent and child self-esteem, stress management, child guidance, behavior management,and appropriate disciplinary techniques. Respondents satisfactorilycompleted homework assignments and participated in classdiscussions. Mark scored 83% on a pretest and 89% on a post-test.Diane scored 87% on a pretest and 91% on a post-test. Goodwindid not observe respondents with their children.

Julie Thompson

Julie Thompson, a licensed clinical social worker with FamilyConsultation Services, testified that she met respondents inSeptember 1997, in conjunction with their attendance at a smallgroup parenting class that she taught. The focus of the class, whichconsisted of three sessions, was behavior management. Althoughrespondents expressed their anger at the system, their attitudetoward the class was positive. Thompson testified thatrespondents' participation in class discussion indicated aknowledge of child development and parenting skills greater thanthe average participant, which suggested that they had attendedparenting classes prior to her class. Although Thompson neverobserved respondents with their children, based on their classparticipation, it appeared to her that respondents were applyingtheir knowledge of parenting skills. Thompson testified that achild who has special needs requires "more intense parenting," andthat a parent may have trouble parenting a child with specialneeds, but no trouble parenting a child without special needs.

Marcia Shaw

Marcia Shaw, a licensed clinical social worker with FamilyConsultation Service, testified that she met respondents inNovember 1997. Diane attended 14 or 15 counseling sessions withShaw; Mark attended an unspecified number of sessions.According to Shaw, Diane has "book knowledge" of parenting, butdoes not apply it. Mark, however, applied the parenting skills helearned, and due to Diane's job, did the bulk of the parenting.

Shaw testified that, in terms of dealing with the sexual abuseof S.S. and C.N., Diane made progress in that she verbalized herresponsibility for the abuse, acknowledging that she failed toprotect her child. Mark also made progress in that his initial angerover the removal of C.N. was replaced with sadness andcompassion, which Shaw believed was "more real." Thecounseling sessions did not address how to parent a child who wasa victim of sexual or physical abuse.

Shaw testified that, as a result of the removal of S.S. andC.N., Diane was depressed, and that such depression interferedwith Diane's ability to be responsible. According to Shaw, Dianeis less depressed with medication and more able to acceptresponsibility. Diane is working less hours and is able to be athome more of the time. Mark, who is a cook by profession, hasassumed the role of a "house husband." Respondents' anger withDCFS has lessened.

Respondents rested.

Following argument, on April 28, 1998, the circuit court ruledthat the State had proved, by clear and convincing evidence, thatrespondents were unfit in that they failed to make reasonableprogress toward the return of C.N. within 12 months of the neglectadjudication. As set forth in its written order, the circuit courtfound, inter alia, that respondents failed to accept responsibilityfor the abuse sustained by C.N. and her sibling; respondentsfocused energy on hostility toward DCFS and its agents and not onattaining reunification with C.N.; respondents repeatedly failed tocomply with the court's directives regarding services whichneeded to be completed in order to accomplish reunification; andrespondents repeatedly refused to attend services, or attendedsporadically, resulting in termination of the services. The courtalso found that evidence of respondents' ability to parent twolater-born children was irrelevant.⁽³⁾

The matter was continued for a hearing to determine whethertermination of respondents' parental rights was in the best interestsof C.N. Following that hearing, on May 8, 1998, the court enteredan order terminating respondents' parental rights to C.N.Respondents appealed, and the appellate court reversed. Nos.2-98-0565, 2-98-0674 cons. (unpublished order under SupremeCourt Rule 23). We granted the State's petition for leave to appeal.See 177 Ill. 2d R. 315.

ANALYSIS

I. Indian Child Welfare Act

We consider first the argument of respondent-father, Mark,that the appellate court erred by failing to remand this cause to thecircuit court for a determination on the record as to theapplicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C.