DCFS, Permanency, and Adoption: When the System Falls Short

A Fourth District opinion reveals the gap between what the law says about permanency and what the system actually does.

The Child Who Waited Eight Years

In In re Adoption of D.J.E., 2026 IL App (4th) 251115-U, a child had been in the care of guardians—individuals genuinely committed to the child’s welfare—since he was 6 months old. Eight years passed. No permanency was finalized. No adoption was pursued by the state. The child simply lived in limbo: wanted, cared for, bonded to his caregivers—but legally unmoored.

Then, in 2024, the guardians did what the state should have done years earlier: they filed for adoption themselves.

The trial court denied the petition. The Fourth District reversed and remanded for a best-interest hearing. But in doing so, the appellate court went beyond the holding to deliver a sharp critique of the state’s abandonment of its permanency duty.

The epilogue of this case—paragraphs 124 through 129 of the opinion—is worth reading carefully. It exposes a systemic failure that affects real children in Illinois every day.

The Permanency Imperative

Illinois law and policy recognize a bedrock principle: every child deserves permanency. As the Fourth District noted in citing In re A.T., 197 Ill. App. 3d 821, 835 (1990), “Every child should have a stable, loving, secure, and permanent home.” (¶125)

The law acknowledges three permanency goals, in order of preference:

1. Return to parents;
2. Adoption or guardianship in place (if return is not possible); or
3. As a last resort, long-term foster care or guardianship.

Permanency is not optional. It is not deferred. It is a core obligation owed to every child in the child welfare system.

What Happened in D.J.E.

In 2022, a permanency report was prepared. The report concluded that the child was “in desperate need of permanency” (¶126). It recommended termination of parental rights and guardianship placement with the current caregivers.

This was, on paper, the right call. The biological parents had minimal contact. The child had thrived in the guardians’ care. A permanency goal of guardianship with TPR was appropriate.

But here is where the system failed: instead of pursuing TPR, DCFS and the State’s Attorney consented to guardianship without TPR (¶127). The parents’ rights remained intact.

This created a peculiar outcome. The child was no longer in DCFS custody. The state no longer had a statutory obligation to oversee the arrangement. Permanency, in the form of formal legal security, was deferred indefinitely.

The Fourth District asked the obvious question: Why did the state not pursue TPR in 2022 when the facts seemed to warrant it? (¶127)

The State’s Quiet Abandonment of Duty

The court’s answer was implicit but devastating: “had petitioners not sought on their own initiative to adopt D.J.E., the State authorities would have been content to continue D.J.E.’s guardianship with petitioners until he was 18 years old” (¶128).

Let that sink in. If the guardians—private citizens—had not taken their own money, their own time, and their own legal action to pursue adoption, the state would have simply allowed the arrangement to persist for another ten years. The child would age out of the system, reach legal adulthood, and never have the legal security of adoption.

That is not permanency. That is indefinite deferral.

Guardianship vs. Adoption: The Difference Matters

Many people assume guardianship and adoption are interchangeable. They are not.

Guardianship: A court appoints a guardian to exercise parental responsibilities over a minor. The biological parents’ rights are suspended but not terminated. The arrangement can be modified, challenged, or revoked. The guardians have no inheritance rights unless the child’s will specifies. The arrangement ends when the child turns 18.

Adoption: A court terminates parental rights and establishes a new, permanent legal parent-child relationship. The adoptive parent becomes the child’s parent for all legal purposes. The relationship is permanent and generally irreversible. The child inherits from the adoptive parent as a biological child would. The legal parent-child bond survives into adulthood.

In D.J.E., the child was under guardianship. The biological parents could, in theory, regain custody if circumstances changed. The guardians had no formal legal permanence beyond the court’s discretion to maintain the order. Adoption would have made the guardians the child’s true parents.

Eight years of care, bonding, and commitment—and no real legal finality. That is the practical difference between guardianship and adoption, and it is profound.

The Systemic Problem

Why does this happen? Several reasons are likely at work:

Bureaucratic inertia: Once a guardianship is in place and the child is stable, DCFS involvement essentially ends. There is no active case, no worker assigned, no statutory obligation to monitor. The state’s interest—the file—goes quiet. No one is tasked with moving the case forward to adoption. We see this routinely. More than a thousand of our adoption matters involve DCFS foster care placements, and the pattern in D.J.E. — a well-placed child with no one driving toward legal permanency — is one we have encountered many times.

Parental contact after guardianship: The fact that the biological parents had some contact (September 2022 for the mother, late 2021/early 2022 for the father) may have created hesitation about pursuing TPR. But sporadic contact after years of absence is not a basis to avoid permanency. The Fourth District found that the parents manifested an intent to forgo parental rights through the years of inaction (¶¶107-110, 122).

Capacity and prioritization: State’s attorneys’ offices handle hundreds of cases. Pursuing TPR requires work—serving the parent, holding a hearing, proving unfitness. If a child is safely placed and stable, the incentive to expend that effort diminishes. The statute does not force the state’s hand.

Preference for least-intrusive remedy: Some actors in the system may prefer guardianship (less permanent, more reversible) to adoption (more final, more presumptively permanent). This stance misses the point: permanency is the goal, and it requires legal finality.

The Court’s Rebuke

The Fourth District’s closing words are worth quoting: “The State, DCFS, and the trial court can and should do better.” (¶129)

This is unusual language for an appellate opinion. Courts typically announce holdings and discuss the law. They do not often scold the state directly. The opinion’s epilogue signals deep concern about a systemic problem.

The court also noted: “That is simply too long a period to remain without permanency” (¶125). Eight years. Too long.

The message is clear: permanency statutes are not aspirational. They are mandatory. If a child has been in care for years and return is not feasible, the state must act. It cannot simply maintain the status quo and hope someone else—in this case, the guardians—will move the case forward.

What This Means for Guardians and Prospective Adoptive Parents

If you are a guardian of a child in state care, and the biological parents have been absent for years, do not assume the state will pursue adoption for you. You may need to take the initiative yourself.

This was the guardians’ situation in D.J.E.. They had been caring for the child for years. They had bonded with him. They were financially and emotionally committed. Yet the state had essentially checked out, content to let guardianship persist indefinitely.

The guardians hired counsel and filed for adoption themselves. The trial court initially denied the petition—a setback. But the appeal succeeded, and the Fourth District sent a clear signal: permanency matters, the system should have acted, and the family should not be penalized for doing what the state should have done.

What This Means for Foster Families

If you are a foster parent, understand that your legal status is precarious. You have a child in your home, but you have no parental rights. You are not entitled to notice of changes in the case. You have no legal standing to contest removal. Your role is custodial, not legal.

If permanency has not been achieved and you believe adoption is appropriate, consult an adoption attorney. Do not assume the state will eventually initiate TPR. Monitor the case. Request permanency hearings. Ask the state’s attorney why adoption is not being pursued. Be vocal about your family’s readiness and the child’s needs.

D.J.E. teaches a hard lesson: if you want permanency for a child you love, you may have to pursue it yourself.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a legal requirement that DCFS pursue permanency?

Yes. Under Illinois law and federal statute (the Adoption and Safe Families Act), DCFS must have a permanency goal and work toward it. Permanency is not optional. However, once a guardianship is in place and DCFS involvement ends, there is no ongoing statutory obligation for DCFS to initiate TPR. If TPR is necessary, the guardian, the child (through a guardian ad litem), or the state’s attorney may initiate it.

Can the state just leave a child in guardianship indefinitely?

Legally, once guardianship is established, DCFS’s involvement effectively terminates. The guardian has legal custody and responsibility. The state no longer has an ongoing obligation to monitor or act. In practice, yes, a child can remain in guardianship for years without a move toward adoption. This is what occurred in D.J.E., and the Fourth District found it troubling.

As a guardian, what can I do to push toward adoption?

First, file a motion with the court requesting that the judge address permanency and adoption. Second, consult an adoption attorney to discuss filing a standalone adoption petition. Third, request a permanency review hearing and ask the judge why TPR is not being pursued. Fourth, communicate with the state’s attorney and ask directly what the plan is. Do not assume the system will act on its own.

What’s the difference between a guardianship ending at 18 and adoption?

With guardianship, all parental responsibilities terminate when the child turns 18. The guardians have no further legal obligations and no continued parent-child relationship. With adoption, the relationship is permanent and survives into adulthood. The child inherits from the adoptive parent, maintains the family name, and has a permanent legal parent throughout life.

If I am a foster parent and want to adopt, do I have to wait for the state to move, or can I hire a lawyer?

You can hire an adoption attorney to discuss your options. An attorney can advise you on filing a petition for adoption, the likely grounds for TPR, and the timeline. You are not required to wait for the state to initiate the process. D.J.E. shows that families who take their own initiative can succeed.

If you have questions about adoption in Illinois, the Peoria adoption attorneys at Parker & Parker are here to help.

Related Articles

• The Two-Step Adoption Process in Illinois
• DCFS, Permanency, and Adoption in Illinois
• Adoption Consent Requirements in Illinois
• Why Adoption Appeals Matter in Illinois
• How to Adopt a Child in Illinois
• What Is the Cost of Adoption?
• Illinois Adoption Unfitness Determination: What Appellate Courts Look For
• The 12-Month Rule in Illinois Adoption: When the Clock Starts on Intent to Forgo
• Objective Impediments in Illinois Adoption: What Counts as a Real Barrier?
• Intent to Forgo Parental Rights in Illinois: How Courts Evaluate the Evidence