In re Guardianship of Karla Yureimi Ordonez Gomez, 2021 IL App (1st) 201393-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Guardianship of Karla Yureimi Ordonez Gomez, 2021 IL App (1st) 201393-U (1st Dist. Nov. 1, 2021) (Rule 23 order). Minor-Appellant: Karla Yureimi Ordonez Gomez; Petitioner: Guadalupe Cortez (family friend); Circuit Court of Cook County, Judge Stephanie K. Miller.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether a probate court has jurisdiction to appoint a guardian (or enter guardian-related SIJS findings) after the alleged ward has reached age 18; 2) Whether a non-parent petitioner without physical custody may obtain guardianship; and 3) Whether the probate court may grant nunc pro tunc relief to create a guardianship retroactive to when the subject was still a minor to support Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) findings.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court held the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the amended guardianship petition because Karla was no longer a “minor” (Probate Act defines minor as under age 18) when the amended petition was filed. The court vacated the circuit court’s orders denying the petition and motion to reconsider and dismissed the appeal. (Non-precedential Rule 23 order.)

- Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory jurisdictional limit: Under the Probate Act, a guardianship of a minor must be completed before the minor attains 18; once the person is 18 the probate court has no power to appoint a guardian for them under that statutory framework. Nunc pro tunc appointment to create a guardianship retroactive to before the 18th birthday was not authorized to confer jurisdiction.
- SIJS dependency is tied to a valid state-court guardianship/custody finding: Illinois authority allows the probate court to make SIJS-related findings only in the context of a valid guardianship proceeding; without a valid guardianship the court had no authority to enter SIJS findings.
- Standing/merits defects also noted: petitioner never had physical custody (Illinois law requires physical custody for non-parent guardianship petitions), parental consents were not properly notarized as required by statute, and the court lacked necessary background/fitness information to evaluate the petitioner under statutory disqualifications (e.g., felony findings or Juvenile Court Act abuse/neglect findings).

- Practice implications (for practitioners)
- File guardianship petitions while the subject is still under 18 if SIJS or other age-dependent relief is intended; do not rely on nunc pro tunc guardianships to create jurisdiction after the 18th birthday.
- Coordinate immigration (SIJS) strategy early with state proceedings; SIJS eligibility often depends on timely state custody/guardianship or juvenile-court orders.
- Ensure statutory formalities: notarized parental consents, proof of physical custody or statutorily authorized custody basis, background checks, and exclusionary disqualification review before filing.
- If a ward ages out, explore alternate routes (juvenile-court dependency orders, other state-court custodial orders, or federal immigration relief) but do not assume probate nunc pro tunc relief will supply jurisdiction.