In re E.V
Key Takeaways
- 1 Court affirmed unfitness under ground (b) despite mother's late progress after termination petition filed.
- 2 Appellate court declined to reach ground (m) and constitutional challenge once one unfitness ground was affirmed.
- 3 Relevant for family law and DCFS attorneys handling parental fitness hearings and termination of parental rights proceedings.
Summary
In December 2022, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship after Elizabeth V. was found unresponsive in a motel room with her daughter E.V. present, having tested positive for cocaine. E.V. was placed with DCFS and subsequently adjudicated abused and neglected. After the permanency goal changed to substitute care pending termination in June 2024, the State filed a termination petition. Following a fitness hearing, the circuit court found Elizabeth unfit under grounds (b) and (m) of the Adoption Act and, after a best interest hearing, terminated her parental rights. Elizabeth appealed both findings.
The appellate court affirmed the unfitness finding under ground (b) — failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility — applying the manifest weight of the evidence standard. Key evidence included over 20 months of repeated positive drug tests, completion of only parenting classes out of all recommended services, multiple discharges from treatment programs, refusal of inpatient treatment, and lack of transparency with service providers. The court held that Elizabeth's late progress after the termination petition was filed did not outweigh her prior demonstrated lack of responsibility. Having affirmed on ground (b), the court declined to address ground (m) arguments or the constitutional challenge, invoking the principle that courts avoid constitutional questions when a case can be resolved on other grounds.
On best interest, the court affirmed termination, finding E.V. had a strong bond with her foster mother Katie V., who met all of E.V.'s needs and sought adoption. Attorneys should note that late-stage service compliance will not overcome an extended record of non-engagement, and that affirmance on a single unfitness ground forecloses appellate review of remaining grounds.
Key Holdings
1. A finding of parental unfitness under ground (b) (failure to maintain reasonable interest, concern, or responsibility) is not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the parent completed only one of multiple required services, repeatedly tested positive for controlled substances over more than two years, refused inpatient treatment, and lacked transparency with service providers, even if the parent demonstrated some late progress after the termination petition was filed.
2. Because only one statutory ground of unfitness need be proven, an appellate court may affirm a termination order on a single ground and decline to address remaining unfitness grounds or related constitutional challenges.
3. A circuit court's best interest determination will be affirmed where the record shows the child has a stable, loving relationship with the foster parent who meets all the child's needs and seeks adoption, and the evidence of the parent-child bond is insufficient to outweigh those factors.
4. The 2025 amendment placing adoption and guardianship on equal footing under the Kinship in Demand Act does not require a circuit court to prefer guardianship over adoption; the appellate standard remains whether the best interest finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.