Summary
This appellate court opinion reviews the circuit court's grant of a private guardianship petition for a minor child following the termination of DCFS wardship. The court vacated the lower court's orders because it failed to first determine whether the biological father was willing and able to care for the child as required by the Probate Act, rendering the court without jurisdiction. Additionally, the appellate court found that the trial court violated the father's procedural due process rights by prematurely denying his petition for reunification services before a full evidentiary hearing could conclude. The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with statutory mandates.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to appoint a private guardian without first finding that the parent was unwilling and unable under the Probate Act.
- Whether the circuit court violated Benjamin B.’s procedural due process rights by denying his petition without proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
Holdings
- The circuit court lacked jurisdiction because it failed to make the required finding that Benjamin B. was unwilling or unable to make day‑to‑day child‑care decisions; therefore the guardianship order is vacated and the matter remanded for a hearing compliant with section 11‑5(b) of the Probate Act.
- The circuit court violated Benjamin B.’s procedural due process; the orders are vacated on that ground as well.
Key quotations
““So first and foremost, this Court is denying [Benjamin’s] request to change the permanency goal so I do need an order to that effect, and I am striking the September 16th date. It is this Court’s position that I am always bound by the Juvenile Court Act, and the purpose of the Act is to secure for each minor subject hereto such care and guidance, preferably in the minor’s own home as will serve the safety and moral, emotional, mental and physical welfare of the minor… The motion for private guardian is granted, letters to issue instanter, and this matter is closed.”” (¶28)
““Because the circuit court failed to comply with the Probate Act and the court was without jurisdiction to proceed to the merits of the guardianship of M.S., the August 28, 2024, orders are vacated and this matter is remanded for a hearing compliant with section 11‑5(b) of the Probate Act.”” (¶40)
Factual background
M.S., born July 20, 2018, was placed in temporary custody after allegations of neglect by her mother. After DNA testing, Benjamin B. was adjudicated as her biological father. DCFS petitioned for a private guardian for M.S., alleging Benjamin was unwilling and unable to care for her. The circuit court appointed Shelisa as private guardian without making the statutory finding that Benjamin was unwilling or unable.
Procedural history
The circuit court entered orders on August 28, 2024 appointing a private guardian for M.S. under the Probate Act, denying Benjamin B.’s petition for reunification services and change of permanency goal, and closing the case. Benjamin appealed.
Remand instructions
Remand for a new hearing on Benjamin’s petition for integrated assessment, reunification services, and change of permanency goal, and for a hearing in compliance with section 11‑5(b) of the Probate Act. The case should be reassigned to a different judge on remand.