In re Amanda Williams , 2024 IL App (1st) 221732-U ( 2024 )

2024 IL App (1st) 221732-UFOURTH DIVISION
Order filed May 23, 2024
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
IN RE AMANDA WILLIAMS, a disabled person ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of Cook
(William Lee, ) County.
)
Petitioner-Appellant
)
v. ) No. 11 P 873)
Renada Skinner and Midwest Care Management, NFP, ) Honorable
) Shauna L. Boliker,
Cross petitioners- Respondents-Appellees) ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Rochford and Justice Ocasio concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: We affirmed the appointment of a successor guardian for a person with a disability
where the circuit did not abuse its discretion in choosing a professional guardian over
an unrelated individual with no relevant experience and a limited relationship with
the person with a disability. We also affirmed the circuit court's order denying the
non-guardian brother’s request for standing and notice of proceedings after his
petition for the appointment of a successor guardian was denied.
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
¶2 Petitioner William Lee, (William) appeals from an order of the circuit court appointing
Midwest Care Management, NFP (Midwest) as successor plenary guardian for his sister Amanda
Williams (Amanda), a disabled person. U.S. Bank is the guardian of Amanda’s estate, and Renada
Skinner (Renada) petitioned for the appointment of Midwest. On appeal, William argues that the
circuit court abused its discretion when it appointed Midwest rather than Amber White (Amber), the
guardian he proposed. In these consolidated appeals, William also argues that the circuit court erred
when it failed to accord him standing as an “interested person” and order that he be provided with
notice of any filing by Midwest. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶3 Amanda was born in 1992. When she was four years old, she suffered an anoxic brain injury
on Chicago Transit Authority property and received a significant settlement. In 2020, the value of
her estate including a single-family house in Flossmoor was over $4.5 million. Initially, her mother
JoAnn Williams (JoAnn) was appointed guardian of her person and U.S. bank as the guardian of her
estate. According to a budget approved by the circuit court in 2011, the estate paid all of Amanda’s
expenses including the mortgage on the house in Flossmoor, utilities, taxes, insurance, and medical
expenses. The estate also paid JoAnn $2500 monthly to cover the cost of food, gasoline, recreation,
entertainment, and other expenses.
¶4 In February 2020, William filed, as an interested party, an emergency motion to suspend the
letters of office issued to JoAnn and appoint Toriana Lee (Toriana), William’s daughter, as
Amanda’s temporary guardian. The petition alleged that JoAnn was receiving $2500 monthly from
the estate for the care of Amanda and an additional $2900 monthly to act as Amanda’s caregiver.
William alleged that he had seen JoAnn using heroin when Amanda was present in the next room
and that, when she was under the influence of heroin, she was not properly caring for Amanda.
-2-
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
¶5 On February 26, 2020, the circuit court appointed Adam Stern as a guardian ad litem (GAL)
for Amanda and appointed Toriana as temporary guardian of Amanda’s person. The circuit court
issued a citation to remove JoAnn as Amanda’s guardian, suspended the caregiving payments, and
redirected the care and maintenance payments to Toriana. JoAnn entered drug rehabilitation, but
suffered a heart attack and died on March 11, 2020.
¶6 On June 19, 2020, the GAL filed an “emergency report,” stating that Amanda was living in
the Flossmoor house along with Toriana and William. William’s father and other children may also
have been living in the house. At 6 a.m. on June 18, 2020, pursuant to a search warrant, law
enforcement officers “raided” the house in Flossmoor. Amanda was home when the raid started, but
was taken to Toriana’s mother’s house for more than eight hours while the officers searched the
house. Numerous items were seized including phones, a computer, papers and Amanda’s iPad. At
the GAL’s request, Moira Brennan, a case manager from Rehab Assist, visited the house after
Amanda returned. Amanda remembered that the police were there in the morning and was upset that
they took her iPad, but appeared calm to Brennan. The GAL recommended that Toriana not be
reappointed as Amanda’s temporary guardian and that a nonrelative be appointed.
¶7 On June 23, 2020, Renada filed a petition for the appointment of Midwest as the guardian of
Amanda’s person. Although the order does not appear in the record, the parties do not dispute that
Midwest was appointed temporary guardian of Amanda’s person.
¶8 On September 11, 2020, William filed a cross-petition for the appointment of Toriana as the
guardian of Amanda’s person. However, on October 14, 2020, William moved for leave to file an
amended-cross petition seeking the appointment of Amber as guardian of Amanda’s person. On
October 20, 2020, the circuit court granted William leave to file the amended petition.
-3-
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
¶9 On June 29, 2021, the circuit court commenced a hearing on the competing petitions The
hearing was conducted over more than twenty dates and concluded on October 18, 2022. The hearing
began with William’s case in chief.
¶ 10 Reanda testified that Amanda was her first cousin. Reanda helped care for her aunt JoAnn,
cleaning, helping JoAnn into the shower, and driving Amanda to the doctor. Reanda filed a petition
to nominate a guardian for Amanda after the police raid at the Flossmoor house. Reanda testified
that she nominated Midwest because she thought they could “give structure” and help the family.
Reanda stated that she did not know how many caregivers Midwest had used to care for Amanda.
She added that Amanda attended Sylvan Learning Center (Sylvan) twice weekly and had weekly
counseling sessions.
¶ 11 Reanda testified that Amanda was living in a two-bedroom apartment and had a bedroom to
herself. According to Renada, in October 2020, Amanda asked to go “home,” but did not ask to go
home after that.
¶ 12 Renada stated that William organized a balloon release for the anniversary of JoAnn’s death.
Midwest did not do anything to commemorate the anniversary of JoAnn’s death or her birthday. She
added that Midwest did recognize Amanda’s birthday and Christmas. Reanda testified that Midwest
had not done anything to foster Amanda religious or spiritual needs.
¶ 13 On cross-examination, Reanda testified that William saw Amanda twice in 2018, and that he
was not involved in her life prior to filing his petition to remove JoAnn as guardian. After Toriana
was appointed temporary guardian, William, his wife, son, two daughters, and father all moved into
the Flossmoor house. Reanda stated that she never met Amber at the home when she visited in 2018
or 2019.
-4-
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
¶ 14 Dr. Michelle Henry testified that she had been Amanda’s “temporary guardian” since June
2020. In that role, she oversees Amanda’s care and manages her caregivers. Amanda attends Sylvan
twice weekly where she is learning math and reading, and she engages in therapy once a week.
According to Dr. Henry, Amanda engages in activities such as going to movies, shopping, and the
zoo.
¶ 15 Dr. Henry stated that Amanda’s caregivers were provided through All Trust Home Care.
Amanda has had between 17 and 20 caregivers. Amanda told Dr. Henry that she was closer to some
caregivers than others and that she has to get used to having different caregivers. Amanda said that
she did not want to be at the apartment and wanted to go back to the house in Flossmoor. Dr. Henry
testified that as guardian she had a responsibility for assuring that a ward has spiritual and religious
development, “if they want it.” However, when asked, Amanda said she was not interested in church.
¶ 16 Dr. Henry testified that Amanda was removed from the Flossmoor home to an apartment
because the house was filthy, and Amanda gave Dr. Henry the impression that she “didn’t want to
be bothered with the number of people.” Dr. Henry was also concerned that Amanda was not being
properly supervised and was leaving the house on her own.
¶ 17 Shirley Shively testified that she knew Amanda because JoAnn was her best friend. When
Amanda had her accident, she was at the hospital every day with JoAnn. Shively testified that she
and JoAnn moved to the house in Flossmoor when Amanda was approximately eight years old.
William’s father also moved into the house with JoAnn and Amanda. According to Shively,
Amanda loved the Flossmoor house, it was like a playground for her. Amanda knew everyone in the
Flossmoor neighborhood.
-5-
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
¶ 18 Shivley further testified that Amanda was depressed and confused after JoAnn’s death. She
visited Amanda after she moved to the apartment and found her unusually lethargic and could not
keep her head up. Amanda “constantly” told Shively that she wanted to go home.
¶ 19 Amber White testified that she lives in Pheonix, Illinois and works as a school bus driver.
She first met Amanda when she was 11 or 12 years old. According to Amber, she would see Amanda
when she visited with Shively and JoAnn. After Dr. Henry began allowing visits during the
pandemic, she took Shively to visit Amanda. Amanda seemed different; she was “kind of like
standoffish.”
¶ 20 Amber testified that, if she were appointed Amanda’s guardian, the first thing she would do
is interview her doctors and counselors. She would ensure that Amanda gets to her appointments.
Amber planned to move Amanda back to the Flossmoor home and supervise Amanda herself “24/7.”
She thought it was important that Amanda have access to her family. She stated that she would take
Amanda to church with her brother if she wanted to go. She would use caregivers, if she could, to
run errands or if she needed to do something. Amber expected to quit her job to give Amanda her
full attention and anticipated receiving “some kind of stipend” to pay her own bills.
¶ 21 On cross-examination, Amber admitted that she had only visited Amanda three times in the
past five months since she was nominated as guardian and had never gone by herself. She admitted
that she had no specialized training that would assist her in caring for Amanda.
¶ 22 Stern testified that he had met with Amanda six or seven times; two visits at the Flossmoor
house and the remainder at the apartment. Stern had several conversations with Dr. Henry about the
number of caregivers being used and testified that, “in a perfect world,” Amanda would have more
consistency.
-6-
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
¶ 23 On cross-examination, Stern testified that he thought Amber should meet with Amanda more
if she wished to become her guardian. He also testified that he thought Amber’s care plan was “very
loose,” impractical, and unrealistic.
¶ 24 William testified that he was Amanda’s brother. He acknowledged that he was convicted of
possession of a stolen motor vehicle and delivery of a controlled substance in 1999, and unlawful
use of a weapon in 2010. In 2000 or 2001, Amanda and JoAnn moved into the house in Flossmoor,
and he moved there about eight months later after being paroled from prison. He continued living in
the Flossmoor house until October 2020 after Amanda moved to the apartment.
¶ 25 According to William, in November 2020, he visited Amanda at her apartment with Shively.
Amanda was drowsy during the visit and could not keep her head up. When he asked her a question,
Amanda would look at Dr. Henry before answering. Amanda did not seem happy. William stated
that, in October 2021, he held a birthday party for Amanda at his house.
¶ 26 William testified that he nominated Amber as Amanda’s guardian because she was a mother
figure, loving and caring. William believed that Amber would create a home environment for
Amanda. He proposed a care plan with Amber as the guardian, Amber would quit working and be a
full-time caregiver, and Amanda would move back to the Flossmoor house. Amanda’s family would
help with her care but would not move back into the Flossmoor house. William felt that under the
current care plan Amanda was a “hostage” in her apartment. In addition, he was concerned about
the number of caregivers being used to care for Amanda.
¶ 27 On cross-examination, William testified that he kept a room at the Flossmoor house, but that
he only visited two or three times weekly. William denied petitioning to have his mother’s
-7-
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
guardianship suspended so he could move his family into the Flossmoor house. He testified that
after Toriana was appointed temporary guardian, he stayed at the house more frequently to help out.
¶ 28 On December 15, 2021, Midwest, through its attorney, informed the court that Amanda
would be moving back into the Flossmoor house. Midwest proposed that its care plan would remain
the same with two shifts of caregivers.
¶ 29 On January 25, 2022, Ranada commenced her case in chief. Benjamin Topp testified that he
was the president and managing director of Midwest. Since 2010, when the company was formed,
Midwest had served over 1200 clients with disabilities, including mental illness, developmental
disabilities and traumatic brain injuries. The court found Topp to be an expert in the field of case
management for persons with disabilities.
¶ 30 Topp testified that Midwest was the temporary guardian for Amanda. Dr. Henry was
Amanda’s case manager and reported directly to him. Topp believed Dr. Henry was a good choice
because she had a Ph.D. and a master’s degree in counseling and had experience working with
complex family systems and younger clients. According to Topp, Amanda has a high-level of
functioning, is mobile, and independent in her activities of daily living. However, Amanda has some
memory impairment, has trouble sleeping, can be impulsive, and has threatened to elope. Topp
opined that Amanda needed 24-hour supervision, but, because of her sleep disturbances, a live-in
caregiver could not provide her with appropriate supervision. Instead, Midwest used two shifts of
caregivers seven days a week.
¶ 31 On cross-examination Topp admitted that both Midwest’s amended care plan and William’s
plan provided that Amanda would live in the Flossmoor home. Topp also admitted that Amanda was
-8-
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
unhappy living in the apartment. He opined that a guardian should adjust a care plan according to
the client’s needs and wishes.
¶ 32 Dr. Henry was recalled as a witness for Renada. Dr. Henry stated that, as she was formulating
the initial care plan, she learned that Amanda had not seen a doctor for more than six years, and she
was not receiving any psychiatric or therapeutic intervention.
¶ 33 Dr. Henry testified that she created a care plan for Amanda in July, 2020. At that time
Amanda was living the Flossmoor house. William, William’s father, his wife, and daughter were
living in the house along with Toriana. There was a total of five adults living in the three-bedroom
house. On her first visit, Dr. Henry found the house to be “fairly clean,” but there were occasions
when she observed the bathroom to be dirty and saw dog feces on the floor. Dr. Henry stated that
she recommended moving Amanda to a two-bedroom apartment because of the condition of the
home and because the number of people living in the home was an impediment to improving its
condition. She was also informed that there were parties or gatherings at the Flossmoor house. Dr.
Herny was concerned because, at that time the Center for Disease Control was recommending that
people wear masks, she observed two or three additional children visiting the house that were not
wearing masks. According to Dr. Henry, Amanda told her that she did not feel like the Flossmoor
house was “her home,” and she did not want to be there with a number of people. Dr. Henry wanted
to honor Amanda’s wishes and provide a healthier environment for her.
¶ 34 Dr. Henry testified that Amanda told her that she does not like going to William’s home but
looks forward to visiting with Renada and enjoys spending time with her. According to Dr. Henry,
Amber has only visited Amanda approximately five times. Dr. Henry added that Amanda said that
she doesn’t know who Amber is.
-9-
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
¶ 35 Dr. Herny stated that the “caregiver model” in place for Amanda is two 12-hour shifts each
day. She opined that under that model an ideal number of caregivers would be four or five.
¶ 36 On cross-examination, Dr. Henry testified that Amanda had had 54 caregivers between June
2020 and June 2022. She stated that Amanda told her that she does not like “all these people.”
¶ 37 Renada next called Stern, the GAL to testify. Stern opined that Midwest should be appointed
as Amanda’s plenary guardian because Midwest had the skills necessary to navigate the needs of
Amanda and her family. The family dynamics were troubling at times and there was a lot of pressure
on Amanda. Stern added that Amber seemed like a “nice lady,” but that he thought a third party with
professional skills and resources should be appointed.
¶ 38 On cross-examination, Stern admitted that the number of caregivers used by Midwest was
“higher than what is in the best case scenario,” but that it was in Amanda’s best interest not to be
alone.
¶ 39 The parties presented closing arguments, and the circuit court took the matter under
advisement. On October 18, 2022, the circuit court entered an order appointing Midwest as
Amanda’s plenary guardian. William asked that the order designate him as an “interested person,”
entitled to receive all notices going forward, and that he be allowed to “weigh in” on any matters
raised in the pleadings. The circuit continued the matter of William’s status as an interested person.
William timely filed a notice of appeal (No. 1-22-1732) pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule
304(b) (eff. March 8, 2016) directed at the circuit court’s order appointing Midwest as Amanda’s
plenary guardian.
- 10 -
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
¶ 40 On October 21, 2022, William filed a written request to be granted standing to participate in
the proceedings. On November 18, 2020, Midwest responded to William’s request arguing, inter
alia, that:
“William Lee is essentially asking to be made a party to the estate administration for
guardianship of Amanda Williams, but has provided no statutory basis or case law to
support his standing.”
U.S. Bank also responded, arguing that:
“William Lee is not an interested person in this estate. He has no financial interest, property
right or fiduciary status in the estate. The assets of this estate arc solely for the benefit of
Amanda Williams. William Lee is not an heir of the estate; Amanda Williams is not deceased
and at present has no heirs. Furthermore, William Lee does not have fiduciary status; he is
not a guardian of the person or a guardian of the estate of Amanda Williams. William Lee is
not an interested person as defined in the Probate Act”
¶ 41 On April 5, 2023, the court denied William’s request, concluding: “To grant William Lee
standing is contrary to statutory law and well established case law, and as this court has said many
times, it is not in the best interest of Amanda Williams or her Estate.” William filed a second notice
of appeal (No. 1-23-0756). We consolidated William’s two appeals.
¶ 42 We turn first to the appointment of Midwest as plenary guardian. William contends that the
appointment was an abuse of discretion, arguing that Midwest moved Amanda from her childhood
home to an apartment and failed to work with her family to recognize events like the anniversary of
JoAnn’s death. Midwest responds arguing, inter alia, that it had a long history of meeting Amanda’s
- 11 -
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
needs and had demonstrated a commitment to doing so in the future. For the reasons that follow we
affirm the appointment of Midwest as guardian of Amanda’s person.
¶ 43 Section 11a-3 of the Probate Act of 1975 (Act) (755 ILCS 5/11a-3 (West 2022) allows the
circuit court to appoint a guardian for disabled person. Here, Amanda was previously adjudicated a
disabled person, and the parties do not dispute the need for a guardian of her person. The parties also
do not dispute the continued appointment of U.S. Bank as the guardian of Amanda’s estate. The
only question before the circuit court was the competing petitions for appointment of a successor
guardian of Amanda’s person.
¶ 44 Section 11a-12 of the Act provides that:
“The selection of the guardian shall be in the discretion of the court, which shall give due
consideration to the preference of the person with a disability as to a guardian, as well as the
qualifications of the proposed guardian, in making its appointment. However, the paramount
concern in the selection of the guardian is the best interests and well-being of the person with
a disability.” 755 ILCS 5/11a-12 (West 2022)
To be qualified to serve, the proposed guardian must: (1) be capable of providing an active and
suitable program of guardianship for the disabled person; (2) be at least 18 years old; (3) be a resident
of the United States; (4) be of sound mind; and (5) generally have not been convicted of a felony. In
re Estate of McHenry, 2016 IL App (3d) 140913, ¶ 141. Although the circuit court is required to
give due consideration to the wishes of the disabled person regarding the choice of guardian, it is
not bound by that preference. Id. The circuit court must also consider the proposed guardian’s
qualifications. Id. However, the primary consideration remains the best interests and well-being of
- 12 -
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
the disabled person. Id. The decision in McHenry identifies six factors a circuit court may consider
in appointing a guardian:
“(1) the degree of relationship between the disabled person and the proposed guardian; (2)
the recommendations of persons with kinship or familial ties to the disabled person; (3)
conduct by the disabled person prior to the adjudication demonstrating trust or confidence in
the proposed guardian; (4) prior conduct by the proposed guardian indicating a concern for
the well-being of the disabled person; (5) the ability of the proposed guardian to manage the
disabled person's estate (the proposed guardian's business experience and other factors); and
(6) the extent to which the proposed guardian is committed to discharging any
responsibilities which might conflict with his or her duties as a guardian.” Id. (citing In re
Estate of Johnson, 303 Ill. App. 3d 696, 705 (1999)).
¶ 45 The first factor for consideration favored the appointment of Midwest over Amber. Midwest
had been serving as temporary guardian for more than a year prior to its appointment as plenary
guardian. Amber had no strong family relationship with Amanda and had only visited her three to
five times during the pendency of the cross-petitions.
¶ 46 The second factor does not strongly favor either Amber or Midwest. Although William
clearly preferred Amber over Midwest, Renada’s cross-petition recommended Midwest.
¶ 47 Amanda was adjudicated a disabled person long before the choice between Midwest and
Amber arose, and was never able to demonstrate trust or confidence in either. Therefore, the third
factor does not favor either nominated guardian.
¶ 48 The fourth factor strongly favors Midwest. Midwest had served as temporary guardian and
had initiated medical care and counseling for Amanda, enrolled her in tutoring at Sylvan, and
- 13 -
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
arranged for twenty-four hour a day caregivers. Amber on the other hand had only visited Amanda
sporadically and had never demonstrated significant concern for Amanda’s well-being prior to being
nominated as guardian.
¶ 49 As to the fifth and sixth factors, William argues they are irrelevant, because they are directed
at the qualifications of a guardian to handle the financial affairs of a disabled person and there was
no dispute that U.S. Bank should remain as guardian of Amanda’s estate. We agree and find it
unnecessary to address these factors individually.
¶ 50 The most important consideration remains the best interests and well-being of Amanda. The
circuit court found Midwest was in a better position to provide for Amanda’s needs. There was
evidence to support that determination. Midwest had provided care for Amanda for over a year;
attended to her medical needs, counseling, and tutoring; moved Amanda to an apartment when the
home in Flossmoor was overcrowded and dirty; and returned her to that home after conditions
improved. Amber on the other hand, had only sporadically visited Amanda, and had proposed a care
plan that the GAL described as loose and impractical.
¶ 51 William argues that he “consistently showed himself as a caring older brother.” He
organized a memorial for the anniversary of his mother’s death, cared for Amanda when they lived
together, and took her on a family vacation. However, we must recognize that William was not the
nominated guardian, Amber was. Therefore, we find that evidence of William’s role in Amanda’s
life is less relevant than evidence of Amber’s role.
¶ 52 William also criticizes Midwest for its decision to move Amanda from the Flossmoor house
to an apartment and then back to the Flossmoor house. Midwest argues that the decisions reflect a
willingness to adapt the care plan for Amanda in response to changing circumstances. The decision
- 14 -
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
to move Amanda to an apartment was prompted by the large number of people living in the house
and the conditions in the house. The move back to Flossmoor was prompted when the house had
been vacated, cleaned, and repaired. The circuit court was aware of the circumstances surrounding
Midwest’s decision to move Amanda to and from an apartment but nevertheless found Midwest to
be the best qualified to act as Amanda’s guardian.
¶ 53 William also argues that Midwest used an excessive number of caregivers. Dr. Henry and
the GAL acknowledged that the number of caregivers was more than “ideal.” The turnover in
caregivers is troubling, but the circuit court was aware of the problem and still decided to appoint
Midwest. We cannot conclude that the circuit court’s decision was an abuse of discretion simply
because there was evidence that the care plan could be better implemented by using fewer caregivers.
¶ 54 We review the decision of the circuit court to appoint a guardian against an abuse of
discretion standard. McHenry, 2016 IL App (3d) 140913, ¶ 139. An abuse of discretion will be found
only where the circuit court’s decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or when no reasonable
person would have taken the view adopted by the circuit court. Id.¶ 55 We have considered all of the evidence and the parties’ arguments and are unable to find that
the circuit court’s appointment of Midwest that was arbitrary or fanciful. Therefore, we cannot
conclude that the appointment of Midwest as guardian of Amanda’s person was an abuse of
discretion.
¶ 56 William next contends that the circuit court erred when it denied his petition to be deemed
an interested person for the purpose of notice. William contends that he is an interested person under
the definition set forth in section 1-2.11 of the Act (755 ILCS 5/1-2.11 (West 2022)) because he is
Amanda’s heir. We disagree.
- 15 -
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.
¶ 57 The question of whether the Act confers standing on a person is a matter of statutory
interpretation that we review de novo. See Martinez v. City of Springfield, 2022 IL App (4th) 210290,
¶ 26. Section 1-2.11 of the Act defines an interested person as:
“one who has or represents a financial interest, property right or fiduciary status at the time
of reference which may be affected by the action, power or proceeding involved, including
without limitation an heir, legatee, creditor, person entitled to a spouse's or child's award and
the representative.” 755 ILCS 5/1-2.11 (West 2022)
Although William asserts that he is an “heir” within the meaning of section 1-2.11, “no one can be
the heir of a living person.” Dempsey v. Dempsey, 342 Ill. App. 3d 969, 974 (2003). Therefore,
William does not have a present financial interest in Amanda’s estate. Accordingly, the circuit court
did not err when it denied him standing to receive notice of all actions by Midwest.
¶ 58 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when
it appointed Midwest as guardian of Amanda’s person. We further conclude that William was not
entitled to standing as an interested person in the guardianship proceedings. Therefore, we affirm
the orders of the circuit court.
¶ 59 Affirmed.
- 16 -