Ashley M. v. Veronica B. (In re V.R.W.)

1

2024 IL App (4th) 240363-U

In re GUARDIANSHIP OF V.R.W., a Minor

Ashley M., Petitioner and Counterrespondent-Appellee, v. Veronica B., Respondent and Counterpetitioner-Appellant

No. 4-24-0363

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

July 25, 2024

This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County No. 21P702 Honorable Dwayne A. Gab, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE VANCIL delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Doherty and Knecht concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

VANCIL JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court had jurisdiction over the petition for guardianship filed by a minor child's short-term guardian; an "other person having an interest in the welfare of the child" lacked standing to petition for visitation under the Probate Act of 1975 (755 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq. (West 2022)) where the child's biological father was still alive; and the court's best interests determination and allocation of guardian ad litem fees were not abuses of discretion.

¶ 2 In December 2021, Miranda W, mother of the minor child V.R.W., died from liver disease. Petitioner, Ashley M and counterpetitioner, Veronica B., each filed competing petitions to be appointed permanent guardian of then five-year-old V.R.W. Two years later, the Sangamon County trial court denied Veronica's petition and appointed Ashley as V.R.W.'s permanent guardian. Veronica appeals the trial court's judgment, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over Ashley's petition, Veronica's appointment as guardian was in V.R.W.'s best interests and the court erroneously denied her petition for visitation. She also asks us to find the guardian ad litem (GAL) fees were unfair and to assign a different judge on remand.

¶ 3 We affirm.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Miranda began dating Veronica in 2008. After seven years together, they wanted to have a child. They found a man, Andrew H., on Craigslist to impregnate Miranda. At the time, they knew him only by the name "Drew." He and Miranda had sexual intercourse, Miranda became pregnant, and she gave birth to V.R.W. in March 2016. Andrew, Veronica, and Miranda all intended Andrew to have no further involvement in V.R.W.'s life. For a few years, Miranda and Veronica lived together with V.R.W. and Veronica's daughter, Grace R. The couple never married or entered into a civil union, and Veronica did not legally adopt V.R.W.

¶ 6 Miranda struggled with alcoholism, and in 2019, she was hospitalized and diagnosed with jaundice from stage 4 liver disease. Miranda and Veronica had stopped dating, and Miranda moved out of their house. Veronica and Miranda shared responsibility for V.R.W. after Miranda moved out, although the details are contested. In October 2019, Miranda signed a shortterm guardianship form. The form provided if Miranda's physician certified that she was "no longer willing or able to make and carry out day-to-day child care decisions concerning [V.R.W.]," then her cousin, Ashley, would be the short-term guardian for V.R.W.

¶ 7 Briefly, Miranda's health appeared to improve. In March 2020, she and V.R.W. moved back in with Veronica. However, by mid-2021, her health had dramatically declined again. In May 2021, she and V.R.W. moved out again. In December 2021, Miranda was hospitalized again. Soon after, her physician certified that she was no longer able to care for V.R.W., triggering Ashley's short-term guardianship. Ashley took physical custody of V.R.W. and refused to allow Veronica to contact her. Miranda died a few days later.

¶ 8 Veronica and Ashley each petitioned for guardianship of V.R.W. Veronica also petitioned for visitation. The trial court appointed a GAL for V.R.W. Throughout the proceedings, Veronica and Ashley each alleged the other engaged in abusive or harassing conduct toward the other. Ashley filed multiple petitions for orders of protection against Veronica, and all were dismissed. Veronica likewise filed a petition for an order of protection against Ashley, which was also dismissed. In January 2022, Veronica visited with V.R.W. Ashley's mother, Dianne D., and a family friend, Patty S., supervised the visit. By all accounts, the visit was tense, although the parties disagree on the details. Since that visit, Veronica has not seen or spoken to V.R.W., and the parties blame each other for this.

¶ 9 Ashley moved to dismiss Veronica's amended petition for visitation pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2022)). In August 2022, the trial court granted Ashley's motion. It found the Probate Act of 1975 (Probate Act) (755 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq. (West 2022)) did not authorize visitation rights for "interested parties" unless both the minor child's parents were deceased, and here, no one alleged that V.R.W.'s father was deceased. He was only missing and "most likely" still alive.

¶ 10 In September 2022, Veronica filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of her petition for visitation. Her private investigator then located V.R.W.'s biological father, Andrew, who consented to Veronica's adoption of V.R.W. and her appointment as guardian. Veronica supplemented her motion to reconsider, filed a second amended petition for guardianship, and moved to dismiss Ashley's second amended petition for guardianship pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2022)) and to terminate Ashley's temporary guardianship. In these pleadings, Veronica argued she had a superior claim to guardianship of V.R.W. than Ashley, either because she was an "intended parent" of V.R.W. or because Andrew had consented to her appointment as guardian.

¶ 11 The trial court denied Veronica's motion to reconsider and her motion to dismiss. Relying on In re Parentage of Scarlett Z.-D., 2015 IL 117904, the court reasoned Illinois does not recognize "functional parentage." The court also found Andrew's consent to adoption did not eliminate the court's jurisdiction because he "has not been involved in the raising of the child and was absent and unknown for most of the pendency of this matter and the child's life."

¶ 12 Veronica appealed the trial court's orders denying her motion to dismiss Ashley's petition, dismissing her petition for visitation, and denying her motion to reconsider that dismissal. In a summary order, we found these were not "final orders," so we dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. In re Guardianship of V.R.W., 4-23-0368 (2023) (unpublished summary order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(c)).

¶ 13 Back before the trial court, the GAL had recommended V.R.W. and Veronica begin working with a counselor toward "reunification." At first, the parties agreed, but counseling sessions broke down. After the GAL filed an affidavit of GAL fees, Veronica objected. She claimed the GAL had delayed speaking to V.R.W., had not spoken to her family, and had attempted to improperly influence Andrew to withdraw his consent to Veronica's appointment as guardian by suggesting the parties would be less likely to harass him if he remained neutral. She argued the GAL had not fulfilled his duties under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 907 (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). At an evidentiary hearing on the objection, the GAL testified he had recommended Veronica have visits with V.RW., but their first visit "blew up" because of a problem with "the adults," including Veronica and Dianne, and Ashley's short-term guardianship authorized her to decide whether Veronica visited V.R.W., absent a court order. He further testified Veronica "refused to sit in the same room with Ashley." At the hearing, the court asked if Veronica sought to disqualify the GAL, and Veronica's attorney confirmed she did not seek disqualification. The court denied her objections, finding the GAL's fees were fair, reasonable, and related to his duties, and Veronica failed to show the GAL had any inappropriate bias or engaged in any disqualifying conduct. The court ordered Veronica and Ashley each to pay half the GAL fees.

¶ 14 Before trial, the GAL submitted his report. The report described the circumstances of V.R.W.'s conception, stating Miranda and Veronica" 'misrepresented themselves' as a married couple and told [Andrew] they expected to adopt the baby once it was born." The report explained Andrew simultaneously wanted to honor his agreement with Veronica and do what is in V.R.W.'s best interests, but he wanted no information regarding Ashley or V.R.W.'s needs. The report concluded Andrew's "contradictory positions are difficult to reconcile." Regarding the attempts to discuss a settlement and counseling, the report indicated the attempts broke down because Veronica "refused to participate in counseling with [Ashley]. Specifically, [Veronica] refused to sit in the same room with [Ashley]."

¶ 15 Ultimately, the GAL report recommended Ashley be appointed as guardian. It explained, "[V.R.W.] is in a calm, stable, nurturing environment and her stability should not be disturbed. She has close relationships with [Ashley's] children and is adjusted to her home, community and school." It further stated the recommendation was contingent on Ashley fostering a relationship between V.R.W. and Veronica and Veronica's family, including by participating in counseling sessions.

¶ 16 The trial began in November 2023, and it ended in January 2024. Andrew testified first. He acknowledged he was V.R.W.'s biological father. When he first communicated with Veronica and Miranda, they represented themselves to him as a married couple. He never signed any written agreement regarding V.R.W.'s parentage. He confirmed the last time he saw Miranda, in 2015, ...