In re Guardianship of V.R.W., 2024 IL App (4th) 240363-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Guardianship of V.R.W., 2024 IL App (4th) 240363‑U.
- Petitioner/Appellee: Ashley M. (short‑term guardian who sought permanent guardianship).
- Respondent/Appellant: Veronica B. (partner of the deceased mother seeking guardianship/visitation). Minor: V.R.W.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a permanent guardianship petition filed by a short‑term guardian who assumed custody under a physician‑certified short‑term guardianship instrument.
- Whether an “other person having an interest in the welfare of the child” (here, a nonbiological partner who never adopted) may obtain visitation under the Probate Act when a biological parent is alive but absent.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in (a) appointing Ashley as permanent guardian (best‑interests determination) and (b) allocating guardian ad litem (GAL) fees.

3. Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court had jurisdiction; Ashley was appointed permanent guardian; Veronica’s petition for visitation was properly dismissed; the best‑interests determination and the allocation of GAL fees were not abuses of discretion.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Jurisdiction/standing: The trial court retained power to adjudicate Ashley’s petition despite Andrew (biological father) later being located and consenting to Veronica’s adoption. The court emphasized the father had been absent and unknown for most of the proceedings and the child’s life, so Ashley’s prior short‑term guardianship that resulted in custody supported proceeding to permanent guardianship.
- Visitation: Under the Probate Act, visitation claims by “other persons having an interest” are not authorized when a biological parent is alive; the court followed statutory limitations and precedent. The presence of a living biological parent (even if missing/absent) precluded Veronica’s statutory visitation claim.
- Best interests: The GAL report and testimony supported that V.R.W. was settled in Ashley’s home, with attachments and stability; thus appointment of Ashley served the child’s best interests.
- GAL fees: The court found the GAL performed appropriate duties under Rule 907; fees were reasonable and dividing them between parties was within the court’s discretion.

5. Practice implications for family law practitioners
- Before filing visitation claims under the Probate Act, confirm parental status: statutory visitation for “interested persons” is constrained where a biological parent is alive.
- Short‑term guardians in actual custody may have standing and practical momentum toward permanent guardianship—document formal short‑term authorizations and physician certifications.
- Illinois does not readily recognize “functional parentage” absent statutory parentage/adoption (see reliance on Scarlett Z.‑D.); intent‑to‑parent evidence is often insufficient alone. Obtain and preserve parental consents and adoption paperwork early.
- Create a robust best‑interests record (stability, attachments, GAL input). Challenge or document any GAL conduct promptly—fee disputes and split allocations are discretionary but reviewable.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 non‑precedential appellate order.