In re Custody of H.J., 2021 IL App (4th) 200401

In re Custody of H.J., 2021 IL App (4th) 200401

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Custody of H.J. and L.J., 2021 IL App (4th) 200401.
- Petitioners-Appellants: Patrick E. Lee and Lisa D. Lee (maternal grandparents).
- Respondent-Appellee: Kristina Calhoun (long‑term foster parent).
- Underlying parties: DCFS, parents (parental rights terminated), guardian ad litem, State.

2) Key legal issues
- Did the grandparents have standing to appeal after the trial court denied their petition to intervene/limited their participation?
- Was the trial court’s custody/guardianship decision (granting Calhoun’s petition and denying the Lees’) against the manifest weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion, given DCFS policy favoring relative placement and sibling consolidation?
- Procedural/finality issues (Rule 303 final order; Rule 311 expedited disposition).

3) Holding/outcome
- Appellate court affirmed. The Lees had standing to appeal. The trial court’s custody/guardianship decision favoring Calhoun was not against the manifest weight of the evidence nor an abuse of discretion.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Standing: Court rejected challenge—lack of standing is an affirmative defense and Calhoun (who asserted it) waived it at trial by not timely raising it; the Lees were permitted limited participation and filed a custody petition, which supported appellate standing.
- Best‑interests analysis: The trial court found many best‑interest factors “cut both ways.” Critical to the ruling was the court’s determination that removing the children from Calhoun (their long‑term foster parent) posed a known and significant risk of harm—especially to H.J., characterized as “incredibly fragile”—while moving them to grandparents posed unknown harms. The court credited testimony (including expert) about trauma risks and bonding with the foster parent. Although DCFS initially erred by failing to timely contact the grandparents and later changed its recommendation, those administrative failures did not compel awarding custody to the grandparents.
- Finality/expedited review: The dispositional order was later reduced to writing and deemed final under Rule 303. The appellate court acknowledged but excused delay under Rule 311 given the voluminous record.

5) Practice implications
- Standing objections should be raised timely—failure to do so risks waiver. Parties seeking intervention should document and preserve intervention/participation objections and appellate issues.
- Courts may prioritize the child’s current psychological stability and attachment to a long‑term foster parent over DCFS’s kinship preference when removal would cause a “known” harm; litigants should develop a robust record on bonding, trauma, and transition risks (expert testimony, teacher/counselor reports).
- DCFS procedural errors (failure to contact relatives) can be relevant but are not dispositive—relatives should promptly assert placement/adoption interest and preserve records of DCFS communications.
- Ensure orders are reduced to a final, appealable form (Rule 303) and be mindful of expedited appellate timetables (Rule 311).