Opinion ID: 3134378
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Ill 2d 53 (1993), this court was presented with several cases

Text: where the trial judge sought to impose restrictions on a guardian's power to consent to an adoption. In each case, the trial judge found that it was in the child's best interest to retain contact with his or her biological parents. Therefore, the trial judges attempted to limit the guardian's consent to an adoption to instances where the adoptive parents had agreed to keep the child in contact with his or her biological parents. In rejecting this practice, this court acknowledged that the circuit court possesses the inherent plenary power to appoint guardians of minors independent of any authority given to the courts by the legislature. In re M.M., 156 Ill. 2d at 63. However, this court refused to give that power a broad construction because at common law the court's inherent guardianship power did not include the power to consent to an adoption. In re M.M., 156 Ill. 2d at 63-66. Furthermore, this court reasoned that a court may not seize upon the best interest of the child mandate to enlarge its statutory powers. In re M.M., 156 Ill. 2d at 69-70. More importantly, this court has directly upheld the Juvenile Court Act against challenges that it invades the court's guardianship powers. In People ex rel. Houghland v. Leonard, 415