Bennett, In Interest of

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: STOUDER
• Citation: Bennett, In Interest of, 399 N.E.2d 735, 80 Ill.App.3d 207, 35 Ill.Dec. 669 (Ill. App. 1980)
• Decision Date: 17 January 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-177,79-177
• Parties: , 35 Ill.Dec. 669 In the Interest of Anne BENNETT, a Minor. Susan Ann BENNETT, Respondent-Appellant, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee.

Page 735

399 N.E.2d 735

80 Ill.App.3d 207, 35 Ill.Dec. 669

In the Interest of Anne BENNETT, a Minor Susan Ann BENNETT, Respondent-Appellant, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee.

No. 79-177.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Jan. 17, 1980.

Jean A. Becker, Western Illinois Legal Assistance Foundation, Rock Island, for respondent-appellant.

Edward Keefe, State's Atty., Rock Island, John X. Breslin, State's Attys. Appellate Service Commission, Ottawa, for petitioner-appellee.

STOUDER, Presiding Justice:

The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (hereinafter the Department) initiated this proceeding by filing a supplemental petition in the circuit court of Rock Island County requesting that respondent Susan Ann Bennett be found an unfit parent under the provisions of the Adoption Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 40, par. 1501 et seq.), and that her parental rights be terminated and the guardianship administrator of the Department be appointed guardian of the person of respondent's minor daughter, Anne Bennett, with power to consent to her adoption pursuant to the provisions of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 37, par. 701-1 et seq.). After a hearing on the merits, the trial court found that respondent had failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the minor's removal or to make reasonable progress toward her return within twelve months after an adjudication of neglect, and granted the petition. The sole question presented for our review is whether the decision of the trial court is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

On April 19, 1977, a petition was filed alleging that Anne Bennett was neglected and dependent and further alleging that respondent was unfit to have custody of her minor daughter. After an adjudicatory hearing on June 7, 1977 the trial court granted the petition, reserving the issue of termination of parental rights. The supplemental petition herein was filed on July 17, 1978 to determine that question, the minor having remained in foster care since 1977.

The evidence presented at the hearing in support of the supplemental petition consisted of the testimony of four professionals concerning the individual and collective behaviors of respondent and her daughter. Marilyn Rotunda, a Bethany Home caseworker, testified that respondent had been inconsistent in her approach to Anne's behavioral problems and had made no progress in her relationship with her daughter. A homemaker with Community Nursing Services, Deborah Hanaman, stated that respondent had failed to implement her suggestions and had made no progress in the mother-daughter relationship. Barbara Staib, a clinical social worker with the Rock Island Mental Health Center, testified as to various behavioral problems of Anne and recommended residential treatment for the minor. A clinical psychologist, Roger Gennari, stated that respondent's attempts to learn child management were sporadic, her changes inconsistent, and that no consistent progress had been made in the mother-daughter relationship. Dr. Gennari additionally testified to various problems Anne was experiencing. While we do not offer this conclusory summation as a comprehensive recitation of the professional testimony in the case at bar, it reflects the unanimity of opinion that the respondent had failed to improve her relationship with her daughter.

With the exception of Ms. Staib, who did not testify as to the progress in the mother-daughter relationship, the professionals who testified had their initial contact with respondent after the adjudicatory hearing of June 7, 1977. In this time between the two hearings, during which the minor was in two foster homes, the respondent became employed, twice receiving work awards, and attended both group and individual counseling sessions with Dr. Gennari. She visited with her daughter on a regular basis under the supervision of a homemaker and had regular casework sessions with a social worker. While our summation of the testimony of these professionals indicates their generally negative feeling, this was in part based on respondent's missing approximately twenty of forty scheduled individual counseling sessions. Her attendance at the group sessions was more regular, however, and some missed individual sessions were due to the psychologist being out of town and respondent's being unable to schedule appointments which would not conflict with her work schedule. Respondent herself was an abused child and Dr. Gennari stated her poor parenting and not being "nurtured" made it more difficult for her to change than it would be for the average person. Nonetheless, he felt she had changed in ways he thought were "good considering where she was a year ago" though he did not feel normal changes had been made regarding her relationship with her daughter. As previously indicated, the other two professionals who testified concerning this issue concurred in the latter opinion.

The relevant statutory authority is section 1 of the Adoption Act (hereinafter the Act) which provides in pertinent part:

" * * * 'Unfit person' means any person whom the court shall find unfit to have a child sought to be adopted, the grounds of such unfitness being any of the following:

(m) Failure to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal of the child from his parents or to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to his parents within 12 months after an adjudication of neglected minor under Section 2-4 or dependent minor under Section 2-5 of the Juvenile Court Act. " (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 40, par. 1501(D).)

Only if the trial court finds a nonconsenting parent unfit under the Act after a child is adjudicated a ward of the court under the Juvenile Court Act, may a guardian with power to consent to an adoption be appointed. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 37, par. 705-9.) The standard in cases of parental unfitness is proof by clear and convincing evidence (See e. g., In re Gates (1978), 57 Ill.App.3d 844, 15 Ill.Dec. 222, 228, 373 N.E.2d 568, 574; In re Barber (1977), 55 Ill.App.3d 587, 13 Ill.Dec. 582, 585, 371 N.E.2d 299, 302; In re Ybarra (1975), 29 Ill.App.3d 725, 331 N.E.2d 224, 227) and the trial court's decision should not be disturbed on appeal unless against the manifest weight of the evidence. See, e. g., In re Gates (1978), 57 Ill.App.3d 844, 15 Ill.Dec. 222, 228, 373 N.E.2d 568, 574; In re Ice (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 783, 342 N.E.2d 460, 463; In re Jones (1975), 34 Ill.App.3d 603, 340 N.E.2d 269, 273.

The language of subsection 1(D)(m) of the Act indicates that the two standards therein are disjunctive, making either a failure to make reasonable efforts or reasonable progress a ground for an adjudication of unfitness. (In re Austin (1978), 61 Ill.App.3d 344, 19 Ill.Dec. 37, 378 N.E.2d 538.) Therefore we shall examine...