In re A.C
Key Takeaways
- 1 KIND Act places termination and guardianship on equal footing; no due process preference for guardianship exists.
- 2 Certified agency records are admissible under the Juvenile Court Act unless created in anticipation of litigation.
- 3 Relevant for family law and juvenile court attorneys handling parental rights termination, DCFS cases, or KIND Act arguments.
Summary
A.C. was born January 25, 2023, placed in protective custody five days later, and adjudged neglected and abused. After a dispositional order placed A.C. with the DCFS guardianship administrator, the State filed a supplemental petition to terminate the biological mother Brianna's parental rights. Following a termination hearing, the Circuit Court of Cook County found Brianna unfit, terminated her parental rights, and appointed DCFS as guardian with authority to consent to adoption. Brianna appealed, challenging the unfitness finding, the admission of a certified psychological evaluation, the best interest determination, and the constitutionality of choosing termination over guardianship under the KIND Act.
The First District affirmed on all grounds. On unfitness, the court found ample evidence that Brianna failed to make reasonable progress during the relevant statutory periods, including three unsuccessful discharges from individual therapy, attendance at only 30–40% of supervised visits, and failure to complete required service components. On evidentiary grounds, the court held that certified agency records prepared to assess parenting capacity for family preservation purposes are not created 'in anticipation of litigation' and are admissible under section 2-18(4)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act. Any error was harmless given the trial court's non-reliance on those records.
On the KIND Act due process argument, the court held that Public Act 103-1061 places termination and guardianship on equal footing rather than expressing a preference for guardianship, rejecting Brianna's least-restrictive-means argument. The best interest finding was affirmed given A.C.'s lifelong placement with foster parents to whom she was strongly bonded and who were committed to maintaining her biological family connections.
Key Holdings
1. A parent's failure to make reasonable progress toward reunification — evidenced by repeated unsuccessful discharges from therapy, attendance at fewer than half of supervised visits, and failure to complete required service plan components — supports a finding of unfitness under 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m) and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Certified records of a private agency are admissible under 705 ILCS 405/2-18(4)(a) without additional business-records foundation, provided they were not created in anticipation of litigation; records prepared to assess parenting capacity for family preservation purposes satisfy this standard.
3. The KIND Act (Public Act 103-1061, eff. Feb. 5, 2025) places termination of parental rights and guardianship on equal footing and does not establish a due process preference for guardianship as the least restrictive means.
4. A best interest finding favoring termination over guardianship is not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the child has lived with foster parents since infancy, is strongly bonded to them, and the biological parent has never progressed to unsupervised parenting time.