In re Adoption of M.W., 2023 IL App (5th) 220791-U
Case Analysis
1. Case citation and parties
- In re Adoption of M.W., No. 5-22-0791 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., Apr. 26, 2023) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Stacy Williams Welch (foster/adoptive parent). Proposed Intervenor-Appellant: Angela Webb (paternal grandmother). Intervenor-Appellee: Illinois DCFS.
2. Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction over Webb’s appeal from the denial of her motion for leave to intervene in a post-judgment adoption proceeding.
- Timeliness of postjudgment motions and notices of appeal (Sup. Ct. R. 303(a)(1); 735 ILCS 5/2-1203).
3. Holding/outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant’s postjudgment filing and notices of appeal were untimely; the appellate court therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Rule 303(a)(1) requires a notice of appeal within 30 days of the final judgment or, if a timely postjudgment motion is filed, within 30 days after the order disposing of the last such motion. Section 2-1203(a) allows a motion to reconsider in nonjury civil cases within 30 days of judgment.
- Here the adoption judgment was entered June 9, 2022; Webb’s petition to intervene was denied July 18, 2022. Webb did not file a postjudgment motion within 30 days of that denial; her “motion to intervene” seeking reconsideration was filed 70 days later (Sept. 26, 2022). The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to act on that late filing and its subsequent order was void. A void order cannot reset appeal deadlines. Webb’s notices of appeal (Oct. 27 and Dec. 7 filings) were thus untimely measured from the July 18 order.
- The court reiterated that pro se litigants get no special leniency regarding procedural deadlines.
5. Practice implications
- Strictly observe the 30‑day windows for postjudgment motions (735 ILCS 5/2‑1203) and notices of appeal (Sup. Ct. R. 303). Late postjudgment motions do not toll appeal deadlines and any trial-court action on untimely motions is void and cannot salvage an appeal.
- When seeking to intervene after a final judgment, act promptly; intervention after final decree is allowed only in limited circumstances and timeliness is critical.
- Do not rely on clerks’ or trial-court informal statements to preserve appellate rights; ensure a timely, correctly denominated postjudgment motion or notice of appeal is filed and comply with appellate filing/formalities (docketing statement, fees).
- Pro se status does not excuse missed procedural deadlines.
In re Adoption of M.W., 2023 IL App (5th) 220791-U
1. Case citation and parties
- In re Adoption of M.W., No. 5-22-0791 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., Apr. 26, 2023) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Stacy Williams Welch (foster/adoptive parent). Proposed Intervenor-Appellant: Angela Webb (paternal grandmother). Intervenor-Appellee: Illinois DCFS.
2. Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction over Webb’s appeal from the denial of her motion for leave to intervene in a post-judgment adoption proceeding.
- Timeliness of postjudgment motions and notices of appeal (Sup. Ct. R. 303(a)(1); 735 ILCS 5/2-1203).
3. Holding/outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant’s postjudgment filing and notices of appeal were untimely; the appellate court therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Rule 303(a)(1) requires a notice of appeal within 30 days of the final judgment or, if a timely postjudgment motion is filed, within 30 days after the order disposing of the last such motion. Section 2-1203(a) allows a motion to reconsider in nonjury civil cases within 30 days of judgment.
- Here the adoption judgment was entered June 9, 2022; Webb’s petition to intervene was denied July 18, 2022. Webb did not file a postjudgment motion within 30 days of that denial; her “motion to intervene” seeking reconsideration was filed 70 days later (Sept. 26, 2022). The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to act on that late filing and its subsequent order was void. A void order cannot reset appeal deadlines. Webb’s notices of appeal (Oct. 27 and Dec. 7 filings) were thus untimely measured from the July 18 order.
- The court reiterated that pro se litigants get no special leniency regarding procedural deadlines.
5. Practice implications
- Strictly observe the 30‑day windows for postjudgment motions (735 ILCS 5/2‑1203) and notices of appeal (Sup. Ct. R. 303). Late postjudgment motions do not toll appeal deadlines and any trial-court action on untimely motions is void and cannot salvage an appeal.
- When seeking to intervene after a final judgment, act promptly; intervention after final decree is allowed only in limited circumstances and timeliness is critical.
- Do not rely on clerks’ or trial-court informal statements to preserve appellate rights; ensure a timely, correctly denominated postjudgment motion or notice of appeal is filed and comply with appellate filing/formalities (docketing statement, fees).
- Pro se status does not excuse missed procedural deadlines.
Disclaimer: This case summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. Always consult with a licensed attorney for specific legal questions.
Facing a Similar Legal Issue?
Appellate decisions shape family law strategy. Ensure your approach aligns with the latest precedents.
Schedule a Strategy SessionLegal Assistant
Ask specific questions about this case's holding.
Disclaimer: This AI analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Always verify any AI-generated content against the official court opinion.