Find Legal Information

Docket No. 96229-Agenda 4-May 2004.

In re D.T., A Minor (The People of the State of Illinois et al.,
Appellants, v. Brenda T., Appellee).

Opinion filed October 21, 2004.
 

JUSTICE FITZGERALD delivered the opinion of the court:

In this appeal we determine the proper standard of proofapplicable during the "best-interests" portion of a proceeding toterminate parental rights. The circuit court of Cook County terminatedrespondent mother's parental rights based on the court's "sounddiscretion," declining to hold the State to a clear and convincingburden of proof, as urged by respondent. The appellate courtreversed. Although also rejecting a clear and convincing standard, theappellate court held that the State must demonstrate by apreponderance of the evidence that termination of parental rights is inthe minor's best interests, and that the State had failed to meet itsburden in this case. 338 Ill. App. 3d 133. For the reasons discussedbelow, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for furtherproceedings.

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 1998, respondent, Brenda T., took her four-year-old son, D.T., to the emergency room of Ravenswood Hospital. D.T.was in severe pain from an injury to his scrotum inflicted byrespondent's boyfriend at least 48 hours earlier. The injury was causedby repetitive blunt blows to the scrotum. D.T. was transferred toChildren's Memorial Hospital, where he underwent surgery todetermine whether castration would be necessary. In addition to thisinjury, multiple bruises to D.T.'s face, arm, back, buttock and thighwere apparent. A linear bruise on his cheek had the characteristicappearance of a mark left by an open-hand slap. D.T. tolerated thesurgery well, and although castration was unnecessary, the injury leftD.T. with an increased risk of infertility later in life.

D.T. was discharged from the hospital on February 4, 1998, andtaken into protective custody. The trial court later placed guardianshipof D.T. in the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS)and appointed the Cook County public guardian as D.T.'s attorneyand guardian ad litem (GAL). After living in a group home for severalmonths, in August, 1998, D.T. was placed in a foster home, where heresided continuously through at least June 2001. At the time of theunderlying proceedings, D.T. was participating in individual therapyand performing well academically, but was experiencing someproblems socially in school. The foster mother expressed her desire toadopt D.T.

Following the removal of D.T. from respondent's custody,respondent participated in parenting classes, individual therapy, anddomestic abuse counseling in accordance with the DCFS client serviceplans. Respondent attended all scheduled visits with D.T. and wasrated satisfactory on service plan tasks. She reportedly made slow butsteady progress in therapy.

On July 19, 1999, the State filed a petition seeking termination ofrespondent's parental rights and appointment of a guardian with theright to consent to adoption. Hearing on the unfitness portion of theState's petition began in September 2000. Completion of the unfitnesshearing was delayed pending a determination of the applicability of theIndian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C.