In re Guardianship of S.C., 2024 IL App (5th) 240659

- Case citation and parties
In re Guardianship of S.C., 2024 IL App (5th) 240659. Petitioners-Appellees: Michelle S. and Wilford S. (paternal grandparents). Respondent‑Appellant: Karlee G. (biological mother). Fifth District (filed Oct. 15, 2024). Judgment: Reversed.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction under the Probate Act to enter a temporary guardianship order.
2. Whether the grandparents had statutory standing to seek guardianship over the minors (i.e., whether they overcame the presumption that the parent is willing and able to care for the children). Secondary issue: guardian eligibility where a petitioner had a prior felony conviction.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s temporary guardianship order. It concluded the trial court lacked authority to enter the temporary appointment under the Probate Act and that the petitioners had not established the required standing to divest parental custody.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
• The trial court’s stated rationale — preserving the “status quo” because the children had been residing with the grandparents — cannot substitute for the statutory prerequisites to remove or divest parental custody under the Probate Act. Guardianship is not a vehicle for informal continuation of living arrangements where a parent retains custody and parental rights have not been terminated.
• Section 11-5(b) of the Probate Act creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent is willing and able to care for a child; that presumption must be overcome by evidence before appointing a guardian. The record did not show the required evidentiary finding that the mother was unwilling or unable to parent such that temporary guardianship was authorized.
• The court also addressed eligibility questions (the petitioners amended their petition to disclose a decades‑old drug-related felony for one petitioner). Eligibility defects (e.g., felony convictions) must be addressed according to statutory procedures and factual findings on the children’s best interests.

- Practice implications for family-law attorneys
• Do not rely on “status quo” or informal caregiving arrangements to obtain temporary guardianship under the Probate Act — ensure the statutory predicates (and evidentiary showing) are met before seeking an order that affects parental custody.
• If seeking guardianship over a parent’s objection, develop a record specifically rebutting the parental‑fitness presumption (unwillingness/unavailability, neglect, abuse, or other statutory grounds).
• Address guardian eligibility (criminal history) early and squarely; amend petitions promptly and be prepared to litigate eligibility and best‑interest issues.
• Consider alternative remedies (juvenile‑court temporary custody, emergency custody orders, consent-based temporary custody agreements) when immediate protections are needed but Probate Act guardianship prerequisites cannot be met.