When a Child Become a Ward of the Court, her Legal Guardian is no longer a Party in Abuse and Neglect Proceedings.

           In In re C.C., 2011 IL 111795, the Illinois Supreme Court held that when a legal guardian is stripped of her guardianship role by the court, the former guardian is no longer a party to proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act.   

            In this case a grandmother had legal guardianship of her two grandchildren when  the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship alleging 3 counts of neglect.  One of the counts alleged neglect due to the grandmother creating an injurious environment by leaving the children with their mother, an inappropriate caregiver.   The other two counts alleged neglect by being exposed to domestic violence and mother’s illegal substance abuse when living with their mother.

            At the adjudication hearing the grandmother stipulated to neglect and waived adjudication.   Following the disposition hearing, the trial court entered an order finding it in the best interest to make the children wards of the court and adjudged neglected.  The court granted guardianship of the minors to DCFS, dismissed the grandmother from the case and discharged her court-appointed attorney.

            The only issue the grandmother raised on appeal  was whether the trial court erred when terminating her party status after the court dismissed her as guardian of the minors. 

            The Illinois Supreme Court held that the trial court properly dismissed the grandmother as a party to the proceedings based on a strict reading of 705 ILCS 405/1-5(1) which identifies those people who can be parties to an abuse and neglect proceeding.  Sec. 1-5(1) specifically identifies a guardian (but not former guardian) as a proper party to the proceedings.  However, the Court then turned to 705 ILCS 405/2-27(5) which states that a guardianship will continue until and unless the court determines otherwise. So, once the trial court granted guardianship to DCFS, thereby stripping the grandmother of her guardianship status, the grandmother had no standing in the proceedings.  The grandmother could not be deemed a “responsible relative” per 1-5(1) because her status had been as court-appointed guardian. 

The Supreme Court noted that a best interest analysis should not be made when determining party status.  The specific issues of the case, such as the relationship between the guardian and the children, could not be considered.  Again, adopting a plain reading of 1-5(1), the court noted the absence of any “best interest” language prohibits a court from making such an analysis when determining who is a party. 

The Court did find that the grandmother could be heard by the court as a previously appointed relative caregiver interested in the minors, under 705 ILCS 405/1-5(2)(a).  And, the grandmother could try to restore her guardianship status under 705 ILCS 405/2-28.  (THOMAS with Justices Freeman, Garman, Karmeier, Burke and Theis concurring in judgment and opinion.)