In re Estate of Andre T.
105 N.E.3d 779
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Andre T., born 2003, lived with paternal aunt and uncle (Guardians) since 2008 after mother Lillian M. relinquished custody; mother had a history of drug-related arrests but reported sobriety and employment in recent years.
- Guardians petitioned for guardianship in Nov 2016; amended petition filed Feb 2017; a GAL was appointed and recommended guardianship while urging consistent visitation for the mother.
- Trial court appointed the Guardians on March 24, 2017 over Lillian M.’s objection and ordered bi-monthly visitation for the mother.
- Lillian M. later (June 2017) moved to dismiss but withdrew that motion and filed a petition to discharge the guardianship under 755 ILCS 5/11-14.1(b), alleging lack of standing, jurisdiction, and changed circumstances.
- The GAL moved in limine to limit the discharge hearing to matters pertinent to section 11-14.1(b); the court granted the motion and excluded jurisdiction/standing/fraud claims not raised via a 2-1401 motion.
- After Lillian M.’s case-in-chief at the October 20, 2017 hearing, the GAL moved for a directed finding; the trial court granted it, denied the petition to discharge, and preserved visitation and GAL oversight. Lillian M. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in granting directed finding on petition to discharge guardianship | Lillian: presented evidence of changed circumstances and hostile communications showing material change warranting discharge | GAL/Guardians: mother failed to prove a material change in circumstances as required by §11-14.1(b) | Court: No error; mother failed to establish material change by preponderance; directed finding affirmed |
| Whether court abused discretion by granting GAL's motion in limine to exclude claims about standing, jurisdiction, and fraud | Lillian: should have been allowed to challenge original guardianship order and raise jurisdiction/standing/fraud at the discharge hearing | GAL: those issues were not relevant to a §11-14.1(b) discharge petition and should be raised via a timely post-judgment (2-1401) motion | Court: No abuse; mother never filed a 2-1401 motion and her 2-619 motion was untimely; limiting evidence to discharge issues proper |
| Whether admission of GAL’s supplemental report the day of trial prejudiced Lillian | Lillian: report was a surprise and prejudicial because discovery was closed | GAL: report was investigative material relevant to the discharge hearing | Court: Presumes trial court acted properly without transcript; no reversible error shown |
| Whether Lillian is barred from filing future challenges to guardianship order | Lillian: sought relief from original guardianship order on appeal | Defendants: mother may file appropriate post-judgment relief within statutory period | Court: Mother may file a new petition to discharge or a 2-1401 motion within two years; opinion offers no view on future merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984) (appellate record omissions lead to presumption the trial court acted correctly)
- In re Marriage of Charnogorsky, 302 Ill. App. 3d 649 (1998) (standard for directed finding: plaintiff must present prima facie case)
- In re Estate of K.E.S., 347 Ill. App. 3d 452 (2004) (best-interest focus and requirement to show change of circumstances to terminate guardianship)
- In re Estate of Wadman, 110 Ill. App. 3d 302 (1982) (examples of proof sufficient to show material change in circumstances)
- Harchut v. Oce/Bruning, Inc., 289 Ill. App. 3d 790 (1997) (trial court loses jurisdiction over final order after 30 days absent timely posttrial motion)
- In re Estate of Kunsch, 342 Ill. App. 3d 552 (2003) (requirements for extending time to file posttrial motions)