Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), & (j); Due process; The trial court’s decision to allow an attorney who represented the child’s mother in a criminal case to represent the respondent-father at a child protective proceeding hearing; Conflict of interest claim; In re Osborne (On Remand, After Remand); Plain error review; In re Utrera; Denial of the opportunity to have the child returned to respondent’s sole care & custody; Santosky v. Kramer; In re Sanders; Stanley v. Illinois

The court concluded that there was no basis in the record for finding that the alleged conflict of interest prejudiced the respondent-father, and that it was not plain error for the trial court to order that the child could not be returned to his care. Thus, it rejected his due process claims and affirmed the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights. He argued that the trial court violated his due process rights by allowing an attorney who represented the child’s mother in a criminal case to represent him at a child protective proceeding hearing. Reviewing the issue for plain error, the court noted that the attorney argued for reunification to remain the permanency goal, requested couples counseling for the parents, “and asked for respondent’s parenting time to be increased or moved to unsupervised visits. The outcome of the hearing did not negatively impact respondent, as the trial court maintained the goal of reunification and allowed the agency to have discretion in giving respondent unsupervised parenting time.” Thus, he failed to show actual prejudice. He also contended that the trial court violated his due process rights because he was denied the opportunity to have the child returned to him. However, the court noted that he never rectified the barriers to reunification so that the child could be safely returned. While there were periods when the DHHS did not have concerns about his employment, housing, or parenting skills, the primary concerns about domestic violence and his relationship with the mother continued to exist. “They lived together for much of the proceeding, and multiple domestic violence incidents were reported. Even when they were not in a relationship, there remained a concern that they were still interacting with one another.” He never showed that he could stay away from the mother and keep the child safe. Further, issues with his “emotional stability and substance abuse surfaced in the latter part of the proceeding.” The state had a legitimate interest in protecting the child.