_____________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

 

2018 IL App (3d) 170405 

Opinion filed March 21, 2018 

IN THE 

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS 

THIRD DISTRICT 

2018 

In re L.W., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court 

) of the 10th Judicial Circuit, 

a Minor ) Tazewell County, Illinois. 

) 

(The People of the State of Illinois, ) 

) Appeal No. 3-17-0405 

Petitioner-Appellee, ) Circuit No. 09-JA-128 

) 

v. )
 

)
 

Jeremie G., ) The Honorable
 

) Kirk D. Schoenbein, 

Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding. 

PRESIDING JUSTICE CARTER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 

Justices O’Brien and Schmidt concurred in the judgment and opinion. 

OPINION 

¶ 1 In the context of a juvenile neglect proceeding, respondent, Jeremie G., filed a 

supplemental petition to reinstate wardship (petition) over his minor child, L.W., so that 

respondent could establish that he was no longer dispositionally unfit as a parent. The State and 

the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) opposed respondent’s petition, and the 

guardian ad litem (GAL) for the minor child supported the petition. After a hearing, the trial 

court denied the petition. Respondent appeals. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 
 

¶ 2 FACTS 

¶ 3 Respondent and Sonja W. were the biological parents of the minor child, L.W., who was 

born in September 2007. In September 2009, the State filed a juvenile petition alleging that L.W. 

was a neglected minor due to an injurious environment. After hearings were held on the petition, 

the trial court found that L.W. was a neglected minor, made L.W. a ward of the court, found that 

respondent was dispositionally unfit as a parent, found that Sonja W. was dispositionally fit as a 

parent, and awarded guardianship of L.W. to DCFS. L.W.’s placement was kept with Sonja W. 

¶ 4 At the first and second permanency review hearings in September 2010 and May 2011, at 

which respondent did not appear, the trial court found that respondent had not made reasonable 

efforts or progress due to a lack of interest and cooperation and that respondent was still unfit as 

a parent. At the conclusion of the May 2011 hearing, the trial court returned guardianship of the 

child to Sonja W., terminated wardship, and closed the case. 

¶ 5 More than five years later, in December 2016, respondent filed a pro se petition to restore 

his fitness as a parent. The trial court appointed an attorney for respondent. In February 2017, 

respondent’s attorney filed a supplemental petition to reinstate wardship (the petition at issue in 

the present case) pursuant to section 2-33(1) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 

405/2-33(1) (West 2016)), which provided, in pertinent part, that: 

“(1) Any time prior to a minor’s 18th birthday, pursuant to a supplemental 

petition filed under this Section, the court may reinstate wardship and open a 

previously closed case when: 

(a) wardship and guardianship under the Juvenile Court Act of 

1987 was vacated in conjunction with the appointment of a private 

guardian under the Probate Act of 1975; 

2 
 

 

 

(b) the minor is not presently a ward of the court under Article II of 

this Act nor is there a petition for adjudication of wardship pending on 

behalf of the minor; and 

(c) it is in the minor’s best interest that wardship be reinstated.” 

705 ILCS 405/2-33(1) (West 2016). 

Respondent alleged in the petition that, after warship was terminated in the present case, he had 

completed several services and had put himself in a position to be found dispositionally fit as a 

parent. Respondent alleged further that he had maintained his relationship with L.W., he had 

continued to have regular supervised visits with L.W., and it was in L.W.’s best interest to 

reinstate wardship. Respondent also sought leave to file a motion for a finding of fitness, which 

respondent had attached to the petition, if the trial court granted respondent’s petition to reinstate 

wardship. 

¶ 6 The State filed a response, alleging that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule 

upon the petition because the facts in this particular case did not comply with the requirements of 

section 2-33(1)(a) of the Act. DCFS filed a motion to dismiss respondent’s petition on that same 

basis. Respondent filed a memorandum of law in support of his petition. 

¶ 7 In June 2017, a hearing was held on respondent’s petition and the various responses. At 

the hearing, respondent argued in support of the petition and asked that the petition be granted. 

The State and DCFS opposed the petition, and the GAL joined respondent in support of the 

petition. Sonja W.’s attorney had not been able to make contact with Sonja W. and did not, 

therefore, take a position on the matter. 

¶ 8	 After listening to the arguments of the attorneys and taking the matter under advisement 

for a short period, the trial court denied respondent’s petition. As a matter of statutory 

3 
 

interpretation, the trial court found that all three conditions listed in section 2-33(1) of the Act 

had to be satisfied before a supplemental petition to reinstate wardship could be granted. The 

trial court concluded that the factual situation in the present case did not satisfy the requirements 

of section 2-33(1) because wardship and guardianship in the present case had not been vacated in 

conjunction with the appointment of a private guardian under the Probate Act, which was listed 

as the first condition in the statute (see 705 ILCS 405/2-33(1)(a) (West 2016)). In making that 

determination, the trial court relied upon the Second District Appellate Court’s decision in In re 

Tr. O., 362 Ill. App. 3d 860, 866 (2005), which had reached the same conclusion in a similar 

factual situation. The trial court, therefore, denied respondent’s petition and also denied 

respondent’s request for leave to file his motion for fitness. As part of its ruling, the trial court 

stated that its decision was final and appealable and made an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) 

(eff. Mar. 8, 2016) finding that there was no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of its 

decision. Respondent brought this appeal to challenge the trial court’s ruling. 

¶ 9 ANALYSIS 

¶ 10 On appeal, respondent argues that the trial court erred in interpreting section 2-33(1) of 

the Act and in denying his supplemental petition to reinstate wardship. Respondent asserts that 

the trial court’s overly restrictive interpretation of the statute (1) is inconsistent with the Act as a 

whole, (2) is contrary to the Act’s purpose to preserve and strengthen the minor’s family ties 

whenever possible, (3) would render the statute useless, as an unfit parent would never be able to 

establish fitness or to obtain unsupervised visitation after wardship had been terminated, and (4) 

would lead to negative unintended consequences where courts would be reluctant to terminate 

wardship or to make findings of parental unfitness because such rulings would leave an unfit 

parent with no ability to establish fitness. Respondent contends instead that section 2-33(1) of the 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Act should be read so that the first condition listed in the statute serves as one basis upon which 

reinstatement of wardship may be granted and the second and third conditions listed in the 

statute, taken together, serve as a second basis upon which reinstatement may be granted (that 

the word “and,” between subsections (b) and (c), should be read as only applying to those two 

subsections and that the word “or” should be read into the statute between subsections (a) and 

(b)). In the alternative, respondent asserts that section 2-33(1) should be read so that each of the 

three conditions listed in the section is considered a separate basis upon which reinstatement of 

wardship may be granted (that the word “and,” between subsections (b) and (c), should actually 

be read as “or”). Thus, respondent asserts that he was not required to satisfy the condition listed 

in subparagraph (a) of section 2-33(1) to obtain reinstatement of wardship as to L.W. In support 

of his assertion, respondent points to section 2-34 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-34 (West 2016)), 

wherein the legislature specifically stated that all of the conditions listed in that particular statute 

had to be satisfied. Respondent contends that had the legislature wanted section 2-33 to be read 

in that manner, it would have used the same type of language that it had used in section 2-34. In 

making his assertions on this issue, respondent contends that the Tr. O. case, upon which the trial 

court relied, was incorrectly decided and should not be followed here. Respondent maintains 

that, unlike the appellate court’s interpretation of the statute in Tr. O., both of his two proposed 

interpretations of section 2-33(1) in the present case would be consistent with the Act and would 

provide a remedy for an unfit parent to seek a finding of fitness in the event that his juvenile case 

was closed, that he corrected the condition that led to the removal of the minor, and that he was 

capable of being found fit. For all of the reasons stated, respondent asks that we reverse the trial 

court’s ruling and, presumably, that we remand this case for further proceedings. 

5 
 

 

¶ 11 The State argues first that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal and that this 

appeal should be dismissed. The State asserts that appellate jurisdiction is lacking because 

respondent did not file his pro se petition for fitness or a notice of appeal within 30 days after the 

trial court entered its final order in May 2011 terminating wardship and closing the case (see 

In re C.S., 294 Ill. App. 3d 780, 786-87 (1998)). Second, and in the alternative, the State argues 

that if this court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal, the trial court’s ruling was proper and should 

be upheld. In support of that argument, the State asserts that section 2-33(1) of the Act clearly 

and unambiguously requires that all three conditions listed in the statute must be satisfied before 

a supplemental petition to reinstate wardship may be granted. The State asserts further that, as 

the trial court correctly found, respondent was unable to satisfy the first condition because this 

case did not involve the appointment of a guardian under the Probate Act. According to the State, 

the Second District Appellate Court’s decision in the Tr. O. case is directly on point and should 

be followed here. Furthermore, the State contends that respondent’s assertion regarding possible 

negative unintended consequences is purely speculative and does not justify ignoring the plain 

language of the statute and that respondent’s remaining assertions on this issue are better directed 

to the legislature, rather than to the court. For all of the reasons set forth, the State asks first that 

we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and, second, and in the alternative, that we affirm 

the trial court’s judgment. 

¶ 12 I. Appellate Jurisdiction 

¶ 13 Before we address the merits of the parties’ arguments on appeal, we must first address 

the State’s contention that appellate jurisdiction is lacking in this case and that this appeal must 

be dismissed. Although it is well-settled that an appeal must be dismissed if appellate jurisdiction 

is lacking (see Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Barth, 103 Ill. 2d 536, 539 (1984)), we do not 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

believe that appellate jurisdiction is lacking in the present case. Contrary to the State’s 

contention, the time-limits that apply to the filing of a post-judgment motion do not apply to a 

section 2-33(1) petition because, pursuant to the statue, such a petition may be filed any time 

prior to the minor’s 18th birthday. See 705 ILCS 405/2-33(1) (West 2016). Under our reading of 

the plain language of the statute, once a section 2-33(1) petition is filed, the trial court has 

authority and jurisdiction to consider reinstating wardship. See In re T.W., 352 Ill. App. 3d 1208, 

1213 (2004). To the extent that the Second District Appellate Court took a different position on 

jurisdiction in the Tr. O. case (see Tr. O., 362 Ill. App. 3d at 865-66), we disagree with that 

conclusion. Furthermore, although permanency-type orders are typically not final and 

appealable, the trial court order that was appealed from in the present case was permanent in 

nature and had the characteristics of a final and appealable order. See In re Faith B., 216 Ill. 2d 

1, 16-18 (2005) (finding that under the facts of that particular case, the permanency order entered 

by the trial court was a final and appealable order). We conclude, therefore, that appellate 

jurisdiction is not lacking in this case since respondent’s notice of appeal was timely filed within 

30 days after the trial court entered its order denying respondent’s section 2-33(1) petition. See 

Ill. S. Ct. R. 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994); R. 303(a)(1) (eff. July 1, 2017); Archer Daniels Midland 

Co., 103 Ill. 2d at 538 (the filing of a timely notice of appeal vests the appellate court with 

jurisdiction); T.W., 352 Ill. App. 3d at 1213; Faith B., 216 Ill. 2d at 16-18. Having found that 

appellate jurisdiction exists in this case, we now turn to the merits of the parties’ statutory 

interpretation arguments. 

¶ 14 II. Interpretation of Section 2-33(1) of the Act 

¶ 15 The interpretation of a statute is a question of law and is subject to de novo review on 

appeal. In re M.M., 2016 IL 119932, ¶ 15. The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Id. ¶ 16. The most reliable indicator of 

that intent is the plain and ordinary meaning of the language of the statute itself. Id. In 

determining the plain meaning of statutory terms, a court should consider the statute in its 

entirety and keep in mind the subject the statute addresses and the apparent intent of the 

legislature in enacting the statute. Id.; 5 ILCS 70/1.01 (West 2016) (in construing a statute, “[a]ll 

general provisions, terms, phrases and expressions shall be liberally construed in order that the 

true intent and meaning of the General Assembly may be fully carried out”). If the statutory 

language is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied as written, without resorting to further 

aids of statutory construction. Gaffney v. Board of Trustees of the Orland Fire Protection 

District, 2012 IL 110012, ¶ 56. A court may not depart from the plain language of the statute and 

read into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions that are not consistent with the express 

legislative intent. Id. However, if the language of a statute is ambiguous in that it is susceptible to 

more than one reasonable interpretation, a court may consider extrinsic aids to determine the 

meaning of the statutory language. See Williams v. Illinois State Scholarship Comm’n, 139 Ill. 2d 

24, 51 (1990). 

¶ 16 The statute at issue in the present case is section 2-33 of the Act, which, in pertinent part, 

provides as follows: 

“§ 2-33. Supplemental petition to reinstate wardship. 

(1) Any time prior to a minor’s 18th birthday, pursuant to a supplemental 

petition filed under this Section, the court may reinstate wardship and open a 

previously closed case when: 

8 
 

 

 

 

(a) wardship and guardianship under the Juvenile Court Act of 

1987 was vacated in conjunction with the appointment of a private 

guardian under the Probate Act of 1975; 

(b) the minor is not presently a ward of the court under Article II of 

this Act nor is there a petition for adjudication of wardship pending on 

behalf of the minor; and 

(c) it is in the minor’s best interest that wardship be reinstated. 

(2) Any time prior to a minor’s 21st birthday, pursuant to a supplemental 

petition filed under this Section, the court may reinstate wardship and open a 

previously closed case when: 

(a) wardship and guardianship under this Act was vacated pursuant 

to: 

(i) an order entered under subsection (2) of Section 2-31 in 

the case of a minor over the age of 18; 

(ii) closure of a case under subsection (2) of Section 2-31 in 

the case of a minor under the age of 18 who has been partially or 

completely emancipated in accordance with the Emancipation of 

Minors Act; or 

(iii) an order entered under subsection (3) of Section 2-31 

based on the minor’s attaining the age of 19 years; 

(b) the minor is not presently a ward of the court under Article II of 

this Act nor is there a petition for adjudication of wardship pending on 

behalf of the minor; and 

9 
 

 

 

 

(c) it is in the minor’s best interest that wardship be reinstated. 

(3) The supplemental petition must be filed in the same proceeding in 

which the original adjudication order was entered.” 705 ILCS 405/2-33 (West 

2016). 

¶ 17 In the Tr. O. case, the Second District Appellate Court found that the statutory language 

of section 2-33(1) of the Act was clear and that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, all three of 

the conditions listed in section 2-33(1) had to be satisfied before a supplemental petition to 

reinstate wardship could be granted. Tr. O., 362 Ill. App. 3d at 866. In reaching that conclusion, 

the Second District Appellate Court noted that the legislature had plainly limited the application 

of section 2-33(1) to situations where wardship and guardianship under the Act were vacated in 

conjunction with the appointment of a private guardian under the Probate Act of 1975 (755 ILCS 

5/1-1 et seq. (West 2016)). See Tr. O., 362 Ill. App. 3d at 866. 

¶ 18	 Although, as noted above, we do not agree with the Second District Appellate Court’s 

statement in Tr. O. regarding jurisdiction as it relates to section 2-33(1), we do agree with the 

Second District’s interpretation of the conditions portion of the statute. We find, therefore, as did 

the Second District Appellate Court in Tr. O., that all three conditions listed in section 2-33(1) of 

the Act must be satisfied before a supplemental petition for reinstatement of wardship may be 

granted. See 705 ILCS 405/2-33(1) (West 2016); Tr. O., 362 Ill. App. 3d at 866. In addition to 

the plain language of section 2-33(1) and the appellate court’s decision in Tr. O., our 

interpretation of the statute is further supported by the fact that the legislature used both the 

words “and” and “or” in section 2-33(2) of the Act (see 705 ILCS 405/2-33(2) (West 2016)), 

thus, clearly showing that the legislature intended to use the word “and” when it did so in section 

2-33(1). Applying that interpretation to the facts at hand, we find that respondent’s supplemental 

10 
 

 

petition to reinstate wardship was properly denied because the factual situation failed to satisfy 

the first condition listed in the statute—that wardship and guardianship under the Act were 

vacated in conjunction with the appointment of a private guardian under the Probate Act of 1975. 

See 705 ILCS 405/2-33(1) (West 2016); Tr. O., 362 Ill. App. 3d at 866. 

¶ 19 We are not persuaded to reach a different conclusion in this case based upon the proposed 

interpretations of section 2-33(1) that respondent suggests. Indeed, as our supreme court has 

pointed out, the use of the conjunctive “and” generally indicates that the legislature intended that 

all of the listed conditions or requirements in a statute be satisfied. M.M., 2016 IL 119932, ¶ 21. 

Nor do we believe that any additional insight is gained by considering the language the 

legislature used in section 2-34 of the Act, when the legislature clearly demonstrated in section 

2-33 that it had stated “and” when it meant “and” and that had it stated “or” when it meant “or.” 

Furthermore, we believe that respondent’s remaining concerns regarding possible unintended 

negative consequences and whether a person in respondent’s position lacks a remedy to establish 

fitness are more appropriately directed to the legislature, rather than to this court. 

¶ 20 CONCLUSION 

¶ 21 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell 

County. 

¶ 22 Affirmed. 

11