{ "id": 251262, "name": "In re S.O. et al., Minors (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Roland Deford, Respondent-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Deford", "decision_date": "1995-05-02", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201494\u20140611", "first_page": "144", "last_page": "149", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "272 Ill. App. 3d 144" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "581 N.E.2d 1202", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "221 Ill. App. 3d 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5799330 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/221/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "563 N.E.2d 1200", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 Ill. App. 3d 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2568611 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/205/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 Ill. App. 3d 802", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2483942 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/197/0802-01" ] }, { "cite": "555 N.E.2d 1198", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 Ill. App. 3d 495", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2475771 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/198/0495-01" ] }, { "cite": "562 N.E.2d 174", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 Ill. 2d 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5576828 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/138/0255-01" ] }, { "cite": "577 N.E.2d 1375", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 Ill. App. 3d 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8498928 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/218/0444-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 584, "char_count": 11417, "ocr_confidence": 0.749, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.746658084041747e-08, "percentile": 0.49481070131888 }, "sha256": "bf2e697d9e787634fa2b82f4cce8d12e3b1958624d29e6acb57f6b29224d1d29", "simhash": "1:a3e548c8aa9887ff", "word_count": 1850 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:46:33.224419+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re S.O. et al., Minors (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Roland Deford, Respondent-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn January 23, 1992, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship of the minors, S.O., N.D. and C.D., alleging that their father, respondent Roland Deford, had sexually abused S.O. (705 ILCS 405/ 2 \u2014 3(2)(iii) (West 1992)). The court granted the State\u2019s petition. The State subsequently filed a petition to terminate respondent\u2019s parental rights. The court found respondent unfit for failure to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the minors and failure to make reasonable progress toward their return (750 ILCS 50/l(D)(m) (West 1992)). The court granted the State\u2019s petition and terminated respondent\u2019s parental rights. Respondent appeals. We affirm.\nThe record establishes that respondent obtained custody of the three minors upon the dissolution of his marriage to their mother, Geraldine, in October of 1990. Geraldine testified that her mother had advised her to talk to S.O. about possible sexual conduct because of an incident in which S.O. had reportedly asked a cousin to \"hump\u201d her. Based on this conversation, Geraldine asked S.O. during a visitation on January 21, 1992, whether anyone had been touching her in wrong places. S.O. said, \"Yes,\u201d and then admitted that respondent had been molesting her. Geraldine testified that S.O. stated that on several occasions respondent had touched her \"privates\u201d with his hand and rubbed his \"privates\u201d between her legs, and that \"white stuff\u201d that he called \"spit\u201d had come out. S.O. told Geraldine that respondent had threatened to kill her if she ever told anyone what he had done.\nBased on S.O.\u2019s statements, Geraldine took S.O. to the hospital. S.O. repeated her statements to Deputy Dick Ganschow of the Taze-well County sheriff\u2019s department and to Ameen Ashshakoor Azim, a child welfare specialist for the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).\nAt the adjudicatory hearing on May 14, 1992, eight-year-old S.O. testified that respondent had put his hand and his \"private\u201d between her legs and had moved up and down on her \"private\u201d and made a sound like a bear. Then \"white stuff\u201d came out. She stated that this had happened more than two times in the living room and in his bedroom. He told her not to tell anyone.\nTestifying on his own behalf, respondent denied any sexual conduct with S.O. Respondent also introduced witnesses who testified that S.O. was angry with him, she wanted to live with her mother, and she had made untrue statements on other occasions.\nAt the conclusion of the hearing, the court found S.O.\u2019s testimony of abuse believable and respondent\u2019s denial unbelievable. Accordingly, the court adjudicated the minors abused and made them wards of the court. The court also ordered respondent to submit to a full psychological evaluation.\nAt the dispositional hearing of July 15,1992, the court considered reports of psychological evaluations of S.O. and both parents. At that time, the psychologist recommended that S.O. remain in foster care and that respondent be reevaluated for substance abuse. The psychologist\u2019s impressions of respondent\u2019s parenting ability were uncertain because of invalid personality test results. The court also considered reports of Catholic Social Service (CSS) caseworker Lisa Sherwood recommending that DCFS be awarded guardianship of the minors and that DCFS be granted authority to return the minors to Geraldine\u2019s custody.\nAt the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted Geraldine custody of N.D. and C.D. and granted respondent supervised visitation with them. The court ordered that S.O. remain in foster care for a few more weeks before returning to Geraldine and that respondent cooperate with DCFS and sex abuse counseling requirements, with the goal that he could ultimately resume a normal parent-child relationship with the minors.\nOn December 20, 1993, the State filed its petition to terminate respondent\u2019s parental rights. At the hearing on the petition, Brenda Ennis, the children\u2019s DCFS caseworker, testified that she had encouraged respondent to attend weekly sex abuse counseling sessions prior to the State\u2019s petition. However, respondent attended only 18 sessions between November of 1992 and May 19, 1993. Then he discontinued any participation until after the State filed its petition to terminate his parental rights. Respondent\u2019s participation in the sessions was deemed unsatisfactory by his counselor because he had failed to make any progress in addressing his pedophiliac tendencies. The counselor testified that it was not safe for the children to be with respondent.\nRespondent testified that he had quit counseling in May of 1993 because he believed his counselor was lying about him to DCFS. He resumed attending the sessions in January of 1994 after learning that he was going to lose his parental rights. Respondent testified that he had admitted doing something wrong, and he understood that children should not be abused. He denied some of the things he was accused of doing, and he disagreed with the diagnosis of his problem as pedophilia. He testified that his problem was \"being accused of stuff I don\u2019t do.\u201d\nAfter taking the cause under advisement, the trial court determined that respondent was unfit pursuant to section l(D)(m) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/l(D)(m) (West 1992)).\nOn July 26, 1994, the court heard testimony concerning the best interests of the children. The testimony established that all three children were living with Geraldine in Galesburg. They were adjusting well to their home with her and had not asked to see respondent. Geraldine believed that it would be in the children\u2019s best interests to terminate respondent\u2019s parental rights.\nBrenda Ennis testified that N.D. and C.D. had been reluctant to attend visitation with respondent during the pendency of the cause. They referred to respondent as \"Pete,\u201d and they were defiant and disobedient when they returned to Geraldine after the visits. Ennis expressed her opinion that it was in the best interest of the children to sever all contact with respondent. Respondent declined to testify.\nAfter arguments of counsel, the court entered its finding that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate respondent\u2019s parental rights. The court reasoned that the children had achieved a stable relationship with their mother and that it was unfair to leave them in limbo with respect to respondent.\nOn appeal, respondent first argues that his unfitness was not proved by sufficient evidence. We do not agree.\nA parent may be found unfit for failure to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal of the child from the parent, or for failure to make reasonable progress toward the child\u2019s return within 12 months after an adjudication under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 1992)). (750 ILCS 50/l(D)(m) (West 1992).) Whether a parent\u2019s efforts to correct conditions are reasonable involves a subjective judgment of the particular parent\u2019s efforts; however, the reasonableness of a parent\u2019s progress toward the child\u2019s return is measured objectively by the amount of movement toward the goal of reunification. (In re L.L.S. (1991), 218 Ill. App. 3d 444, 577 N.E.2d 1375.) A trial court\u2019s finding of parental unfitness must be based on evidence that is clear and convincing. (In re Adoption ofSyck (1990), 138 Ill. 2d 255, 562 N.E.2d 174.) Once such a finding has been made, it is entitled to great deference, and on review the trial court\u2019s finding should be affirmed unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re J.B. (1990), 198 Ill. App. 3d 495, 555 N.E.2d 1198.\nIn this case, respondent seeks to excuse his poor progress by contending that he was not allowed an opportunity to complete the counselor\u2019s two-year program. Respondent\u2019s position is unpersuasive. The record clearly and convincingly establishes that respondent\u2019s efforts to regain custody of the children from between the date of adjudication and the date of the State\u2019s petition to terminate parental rights were minimal and resulted in no measurable progress.\nRespondent was ordered to undergo sex abuse counseling in July of 1992. He was periodically admonished that participation in weekly sex abuse counseling sessions was required if he was to regain custody of his children. Nonetheless, he failed to take more than passive interest in the 18 sessions he attended between November of 1992 and May of 1993, and he made no progress whatsoever in addressing the issues of pedophilia. Respondent admitted that he only resumed attending the scheduled sessions in January of 1994 because he was told he would lose his parental rights if he did not. Although respondent physically attended sessions after the State filed its petition to terminate his rights, he still failed to make any measurable progress toward accepting responsibility for the underlying problem. According to respondent\u2019s sex abuse counselor, respondent\u2019s prognosis remained guarded at the time of the hearing on the State\u2019s petition in April of 1994.\nIn our opinion, the trial court\u2019s finding of unfitness pursuant to section l(D)(m) of the Adoption Act is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm that finding.\nRespondent also takes issue with the trial court\u2019s finding that it was in the children\u2019s best interests to terminate his parental rights. Respondent contends that he was never found to have abused the two younger children, C.D. and N.D., and that he should therefore retain his rights with respect to them. We do not agree.\nOnce a finding of unfitness is made, all considerations must yield to the best interests of the children. (In re M.C. (1990), 197 Ill. App. 3d 802, 555 N.E.2d Ill.) The standard of review is whether the trial court\u2019s best interest determination is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (In re ID. (1990), 205 Ill. App. 3d 543, 563 N.E.2d 1200.) Obviously, it is not in the best interests of children to be placed in an environment where they would be exposed to a parent\u2019s unresolved pedophilic tendencies. Proof of the parent\u2019s sexual abuse and unwillingness to resolve sexual issues with respect to one child is sufficient to support a finding that the other children are at risk. See In re C.R. (1991), 221 Ill. App. 3d 373, 581 N.E.2d 1202.\nIn this case, the trial court found that all three children were adjusting well to their home with Geraldine, that they expressed no desire to see or visit with respondent, and that it would be unfair to leave the possibility of a renewed relationship with him in limbo. Lacking any foreseeable resolution of respondent\u2019s pedophiliac tendencies, the court\u2019s conclusion that it was in the best interests of all three children to terminate respondent\u2019s parental rights was proper.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSTOUDER, P.J., and McCUSKEY, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE" } ], "attorneys": [ "H. Dean Hamra, of Pekin, for appellant.", "Erik I. Blanc, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (John X. Breslin and Rita Kennedy Mertel, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re S.O. et al., Minors (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Roland Deford, Respondent-Appellant).\nThird District\nNo. 3 \u2014 94\u20140611\nOpinion filed May 2, 1995.\nH. Dean Hamra, of Pekin, for appellant.\nErik I. Blanc, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (John X. Breslin and Rita Kennedy Mertel, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0144-01", "first_page_order": 162, "last_page_order": 167 }