In re Parentage of D.C., 2025 IL App (1st) 240904-U

In re Parentage of D.C., 2025 IL App (1st) 240904-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of D.C., No. 1-24-0904, Order filed Feb. 10, 2025 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist.).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Herman Roundtree. Respondent (deceased): Shoshanna Cooper. Third‑party petitioner/appellee: LaVerne Cooper (grandmother). Guardian ad litem/appellee: Ashanti Madlock Henderson. Appeal from Cook County parentage proceeding (consolidated in part with probate).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether an interlocutory order denying a motion to disqualify a guardian ad litem (GAL) is an appealable final judgment.
- Whether any Supreme Court Rule (301, 304(a), or 307) or other jurisdictional exception permits immediate appeal of that order.

3. Holding/outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The April 17, 2024 order denying disqualification of the GAL was nonfinal and not appealable under Rules 301, 304(a), or 307.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Court reviewed jurisdiction sua sponte. A Rule 301 appeal requires a final judgment that finally fixes the parties’ rights; the GAL‑disqualification order did not dispose of any claim on the merits and thus was nonfinal. (Citing general final‑judgment principles.)
- Rule 304(a) permits partial appeals only where the trial court makes an express written finding there is “no just reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal or both.” The April 17 order contained no such certification.
- Rule 307’s interlocutory appeal categories do not include GAL disqualification in parentage cases; the limited Rule 307(a)(6) items relate to termination of parental rights or certain adoption orders, which are inapplicable here.
- The court stressed that pro se status does not excuse compliance with appellate jurisdictional rules and that appellate courts cannot waive Supreme Court Rule requirements.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Do not appeal interlocutory GAL rulings absent a final judgment or proper certification. If immediate review is essential, move in the trial court for a Rule 304(a) finding that there is no just reason to delay appeal (and obtain an express written finding), or seek other appropriate relief (e.g., mandamus) rather than filing a premature appeal.
- Preserve the issue for post‑judgment appeal and ensure the record documents any claimed bias of the GAL.
- Pro se litigants must comply with jurisdictional rules; counsel should advise clients accordingly and coordinate procedural steps (certification/motions) before appealing.