In re Guardianship of Jonathon I.H., 2021 IL App (3d) 200367-U

In re Guardianship of Jonathon I.H., 2021 IL App (3d) 200367‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. July 16, 2021)
(Note: Order filed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23 — nonprecedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1))

Parties
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Heather J.H. (mother)
- Respondent‑Appellant: Brandy M. Whiting (appointed plenary guardian); appeal from Grundy County (Circuit No. 19‑P‑60)

Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in terminating the guardian’s appointment where a parent sought discharge of the guardianship.
- Applicable burdens: parent must show a material change in circumstances (preponderance); guardian may prevent termination by proving by clear and convincing evidence that termination is not in the minor’s best interests.
- Proper application of best‑interests factors and the effect of an incomplete appellate record.

Holding / Outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Brandy’s guardianship and appointing Jonathon’s uncle, David H., guardian of the person and estate.

Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory framework: 755 ILCS 5/11‑14.1(b) — parent may petition to terminate; court discharges guardian if parent proves material change in circumstances, unless guardian proves by clear and convincing evidence termination would not be in the child’s best interests. Court considers five best‑interest factors (interaction/interrelationship, parent’s ability to provide safe/nurturing environment, stability, adjustment, visitation/guardian’s facilitation).
- Material change: the record showed Brandy executed a notarized statement that she “transferred” custody to David and intended to relinquish her guardianship — the appellate court treated that voluntary transfer as a material change in circumstances sufficient to meet the parent’s burden.
- Incomplete record: appellant failed to supply portions of the trial transcript (Foutch v. O’Bryant), so omissions were resolved against Brandy; this procedural failing supported affirmance.
- Best interests: testimony (David, guardian ad litem, GAL) and evidence supported that Jonathon was doing well in David’s care, that David provided adequate arrangements, and that ongoing conflict with maternal family created instability. The GAL’s recommendation for return to Brandy was not dispositive.

Practice implications (for family attorneys)
- Preserve a complete record on appeal; missing transcripts can be fatal (Foutch).
- A guardian’s written/express relinquishment or transfer of physical custody can constitute a material change of circumstances.
- Even when a parent petitions to terminate, courts will apply the statutory two‑step analysis and focus on the child’s best interests; GAL recommendations are persuasive but not binding.
- Where interfamily conflict and violations of prior orders exist, courts may prefer placement with other relatives rather than restore the prior guardian.
- Check ministerial steps (oath/bond/letters) when alternate guardianships are proposed — lapses may affect the court’s disposition.