In re Estate of McHenry
2016 IL App (3d) 140913
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Parents divorced; mother (Laurie) lived in Peoria, father (Daniel) in Florida. Their adult son Chase, diagnosed with autism, was adjudicated a disabled adult and in need of a guardian. Both parents sought sole plenary guardianship.
- Mother had long-term, hands-on involvement: early diagnosis and treatment, implemented ABA/home programs, secured school supports, attended every IEP, developed vocational placements, and maintained Chase at home with community supports. Chase expressed a preference to remain with Mother.
- Father lived in central Florida, presented a detailed transition plan emphasizing Florida resources, private-pay/residential transition schools, a special-needs trust, and asserted superior financial ability to fund placements and long-term supports.
- Experts (neuropsychologists and transition specialists) generally agreed Chase would likely require supervised/semi-independent residential settings eventually; experts differed as to immediacy and feasibility in Peoria v. central Florida.
- GAL recommended Father based on willingness to follow professionals and financial resources; trial court appointed Mother as sole plenary guardian after bench trial and in-camera interview with Chase. Trial court initially ordered Father to pay temporary support; that support ruling remained unresolved on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate guardian for disabled adult | Father argued the court should appoint him: superior financial resources, better access to services in Florida, expert support for residential placement, and a proactive plan to maximize Chase’s potential. | Mother argued she was the better guardian: decades of direct care, consistent advocacy, existing successful placements and transition plan lived in practice, and Chase’s clear preference to remain. | Court affirmed trial judge’s discretionary appointment of Mother; no abuse of discretion. |
| Judicial bias / undisclosed judge interest | Father claimed the judge’s undisclosed personal history (a profoundly disabled daughter reported in press) and remarks showed bias in favor of keeping disabled adults at home, warranting reversal. | Mother contended the press piece did not establish similar facts and trial comments reflected proper judicial reasoning, not personal bias. | Court rejected bias claim: no showing judge’s impartiality was compromised; comments and article insufficient to overcome presumption of fairness. |
| Standard of review for guardian selection | Father argued both abuse of discretion and manifest-weight standards apply. | Mother argued only abuse of discretion applies for adult guardianship appointments. | Court held abuse of discretion is the applicable standard for disabled-adult guardianship decisions. |
| Trial court’s interim support order | Father challenged the court’s initial order setting child-support-style percentage obligation for support. | Mother sought support; trial court later referred support determination to family court and deferred final decision. | Court deemed support issue premature on appeal and declined to decide it; family court to resolve. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (Ill. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard and high threshold for reversal)
- In re Leona W., 228 Ill. 2d 439 (Ill. 2008) (review standards for discretionary rulings)
- People v. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d 353 (Ill. 1991) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228 (Ill. 2002) (presumption of judicial impartiality; bias burden on moving party)
- Lesher v. Trent, 407 Ill. App. 3d 1170 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (judicial-bias standards on appeal)
- People v. Tye, 141 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1990) (judge may use life experience but disqualification only when fair assessment impossible)
- In re Estate of Doyle, 362 Ill. App. 3d 293 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (guardianship review principles)
- In re Schmidt, 298 Ill. App. 3d 682 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (adult guardianship standard and factors)
- In re Estate of Green, 359 Ill. App. 3d 730 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (discussing manifest-weight v. abuse-of-discretion in guardianship contexts)
- In re Estate of Johnson, 303 Ill. App. 3d 696 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) (factors for selecting guardian and best-interest focus)