September 14, 2001

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH delivered the opinion of the court:

The State appeals from an order of the circuit court of St. Clair County denying itspetition to terminate the parental rights of Michael Scott Putman (respondent), an inmate inthe Illinois Department of Corrections, and to appoint a guardian for the minors M.P., L.P., and C.P. (minors). On appeal, the State contends that the trial court's determination thatrespondent was not an unfit parent was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence andthe legislative intent of subsection 1(D)(s) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(s) (West1998)). We reverse and remand.

On June 19, 1995, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging that M.P., born on June 14, 1986, L.P., born on May 5, 1988, and C.P., born on December 27,1989, along with their three half-siblings, were abused and neglected minors. The petitionalleged, inter alia, physical and sexual abuse by the mother's paramour. At the time thepetition was filed, respondent was an inmate at the Big Muddy Correctional Center. On July24, 1995, the minors were adjudicated abused and neglected. On October 16, 1995, themother and her paramour admitted the allegations contained in the petition, and the minorswere made wards of the court. Respondent was granted visitation with the minors once eachmonth for a two-hour period. The Department of Children and Family Services(Department) was ordered to arrange visitation between respondent and the minors. Thepaternal grandfather was later granted monthly visitation with the minors.

On July 29, 1996, a service plan was filed with the court. The plan noted thatrespondent remained incarcerated and that monthly visitation had occurred betweenrespondent and the minors. It further noted, "[Respondent] has shown an interest in hischildren by maintaining regular written contact," but it also stated, "[Respondent] has notcomplied with service plan tasks aimed at addressing his ability to parent the children or inaddressing his history of alcohol abuse." A service plan filed on February 19, 1997,mentioned that respondent failed to comply with previous service-plan tasks aimed ataddressing respondent's parenting ability and history of alcohol and drug abuse but thatrespondent maintained written contact and monthly visitation. It also noted that respondenthad been transferred to Robinson Correctional Facility.

On July 3, 1997, respondent filed a petition for the custody of the minors. He allegedthat, even though he was incarcerated, he would be able to provide for and take care of hischildren through adult relatives, including the paternal grandfather, who were willing to carefor the minors until respondent was released from prison. On August 11, 1997, theguardianship administrator of the Department filed a motion to modify visitation with theminors due to the alleged sexual abuse of the minors by both respondent and the paternalgrandfather. On November 24, 1997, the motion to modify visitation was denied, andmonthly visitation was ordered to continue.

On February 4, 1998, a case summary was filed, which noted that respondentremained incarcerated in the Centralia Correctional Center and that no documentation hadbeen received regarding respondent's participation in any services, such as parenting classes. The next service plan was filed with the court on June 8, 1998, and noted that respondentneeded to deal with his indicated report of sexual abuse by completing a sexual-perpetratorevaluation. The report also noted that respondent was transferred to Stateville CorrectionalCenter (Stateville) in Joliet, requiring the minors to travel 5