In re T.P.S.
2011 IL App (5th) 100617
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Dee and Cathy, in a long-term same-sex relationship, had two children conceived by artificial insemination.
- Cathy was appointed as co-guardian of both children at birth through separate guardianship orders.
- After the relationship ended, Dee moved to terminate the guardianships, alleging she is the biological mother and arguing changes in circumstances and best interests favor termination.
- The trial court ruled Cathy lacked standing to oppose termination, prompting Cathy’s appeal.
- The appellate court addressed standing under the Probate Act, noting post-2011 amendments and the role of guardians in termination proceedings, and remanded for a best-interests/changed-circumstances analysis.
- On appeal, the court held Cathy has standing to oppose termination and reversed/remanded to determine substantial changes and best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Cathy have standing to oppose termination? | Cathy, as co-guardian, has standing to oppose termination. | Dee’s parental rights preclude or diminish Cathy’s standing unless statutes or case law grant guardian standing. | Cathy has standing to oppose termination. |
| Was Dee's standing objection waived? | Waiver applies to the parties, not the court; the issue should be reached on merits. | Dee consented to guardianships and did not timely object, signaling waiver. | Merits considered; waiver not dispositive. |
| What standard governs a nonparent guardian seeking to retain or terminate guardianship? | Under prior law, nonparents must rebut the parent’s superior rights and show best interests with a three-step framework. | The Probate Act 11–14.1 codifies a presumption-shifting framework requiring a material change and best-interests showings. | Probate Act 11–14.1 applicable; guardian must prove best interests; parent must show material change. |
| What is the proper analysis after standing is established? | Once standing is established, the court should assess material change in circumstances and best interests to terminate. | Terminate only if manifest best interests and substantial change, with guardian bearing burden to show necessity. | Separate determinations required: material change and best interests remanded for those findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of Jordan M. C.-M., 351 Ill. App. 3d 700 (2004) (nonparent standing framework in guardianship context)
- In re Estate of K.E.S., 347 Ill. App. 3d 452 (2004) (three-step nonparent standing test)
- In re Custody of Townsend, 86 Ill. 2d 502 (1981) (presumption regarding parent’s superior rights)
- In re Estate of Wadman, 110 Ill. App. 3d 302 (1982) (burden-shifting framework in guardianship custody)
- In re R.L.S., 218 Ill. 2d 428 (2006) (standing and proper scope in child custody matters)