People v. Long
406 Ill. App. 3d 360
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- In Aug. 2010, a dispositional hearing found Marlene Long unable to care for C.C. and So. C. for reasons beyond finances and removed guardianship to DCFS guardian.
- The trial court dismissed Long as a party and discharged her court-appointed counsel, while keeping DCFS as guardian for the minors.
- Long appealed contending dismissal denied her services and participation, though she did not challenge best-interest custody to DCFS.
- The CASA recommended DCFS custody and dismissal of Long as a party, and the court adopted the disposition placing guardianship with DCFS.
- The appellate court held Long should remain a party, citing her role as guardian and the statutory right to notice, counsel, and hearing.
- The court ultimately reversed the dismissal, preserving Long’s party status and associated rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of Long as a party was error | Long argues she remained a party with rights to notice and counsel. | State contends dismissal aligns with cases where guardianship is shifted to DCFS. | Yes, reverse dismissal; Long must remain a party. |
| Whether a guardian who remains a party should be dismissed when DCFS is appointed guardian | Long has ongoing interests and should participate to protect the best interests of the minors. | Statutory framework supports moving guardianship to DCFS and terminating party status. | Guardian remains a party; dismissal not automatic. |
| Whether Long retains right to counsel and participation through permanency proceedings | Long is entitled to counsel and to participate in hearings under section 1-5(1). | Participation may be limited once DCFS assumes guardianship. | Long retains right to counsel and participation as a party. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Anast, 22 Ill. App. 3d 750 (1974) (guardian remains entitled to adjudicatory due process for fitness)
- In re S.B., 373 Ill. App. 3d 224 (2007) (guardian may be dismissed only after considering permanency goals and prejudice)
- In re A.K., 250 Ill. App. 3d 981 (1993) (former presumed father may remain in case to protect child’s interests; guardian status and participation)