In re Guardianship of J.O., 2025 IL App (4th) 241026-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Guardianship of J.O., No. 4-24-1026 & 4-24-1063 (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., Mar. 18, 2025). Petitioner-appellants: James Ort Sr. and James Ort Jr. (grandfather and father). Respondent-appellee: Jasmine Oliver (mother).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether a party who was served with the initiating complaint but did not appear is entitled under Ill. S. Ct. R. 104(b) to be served with subsequent filings.
2) Whether a circuit court in a guardianship termination proceeding under 755 ILCS 5/11-14.1(b) has authority to order relocation of the child.
3) Whether termination of guardianship was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence where termination was premised on an unapproved out‑of‑state relocation that was governed by 750 ILCS 5/609.2 (Marriage Act) in a separate family law case.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court (4th Dist.) reversed and remanded. Held: (1) A nonappearing party served with the initiating pleading is not entitled under Rule 104(b) to service of subsequent filings until that party appears. (2) A guardianship-court may only “discharge the guardian and terminate the guardianship” under 755 ILCS 5/11-14.1(b); it lacks statutory authority to order relocation. (3) Because the court terminated the guardianship based on an anticipated relocation that had not been authorized in the family law case, the termination was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court ordered consolidation into Winnebago No. 17‑F‑955 and further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Rule 104(b) limits service obligations to parties who have appeared; the father, though served with the guardianship petition years earlier, had not appeared and therefore was not automatically entitled to subsequent filings.
- Statutory text controls: section 11‑14.1(b) authorizes only discharge/termination of guardianship; relocation is governed by Marriage Act §609.2 and the parenting‑plan notice/consent process. The guardianship court improperly decided relocation issues that belonged in the family law case.
- Termination decision relied critically on the mother’s planned move to Arizona — a fact not yet judicially approved in the family law case — so the record did not support the termination.

- Practice implications
- Do not expect a guardianship proceeding to substitute for or resolve relocation disputes governed by the Marriage Act; file relocation petitions in the family law case and follow §609.2 procedures.
- Move to consolidate related family-law and guardianship matters early to prevent conflicting or premature rulings.
- Parties should appear promptly in matters where they were served to preserve rights to notice of subsequent filings under Rule 104(b).
- Guardianship relief should not be premised on contingent outcomes in other matters; litigators should either secure relocation approval first or seek continuances/stays and consolidation.