2024 IL App (1st) 221732-U 

FOURTH 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

(William Lee,

Petitioner-Appellant 

 v. 

Renada Skinner and Midwest Care Management, NFP, 

Cross petitioners- Respondents-Appellees) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Appeal from the 

Circuit Court of Cook 

County. 

No. 11 P 873

Honorable

Shauna L. Boliker, 

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 - 

 

¶ 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.
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.

 

 

 

- 3 - 

 

¶ 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.
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.

 

 

 

- 4 - 

 

¶ 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. 
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.

 

 

 

- 5 - 

 

¶ 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.
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.

 

 

 

- 6 - 

 

¶ 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. 
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.

 

 

 

- 7 - 

 

¶ 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 
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.

 

 

 

- 8 - 

 

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 
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.

 

 

 

- 9 - 

 

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, asshe 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.
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.

 

 

 

- 10 - 

 

¶ 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.
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.

 

 

 

- 11 - 

 

¶ 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 
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.

 

 

 

- 12 - 

 

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 
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.

 

 

 

- 13 - 

 

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 
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.

 

 

 

- 14 - 

 

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 
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.

 

 

 

- 15 - 

 

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.
No. 1-22-1732 & 1-23-0756 cons.

 

 

 

- 16 - 

 

¶ 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.