2025 IL App (1st) 242535-U
No. 1-24-2535
Order filed June 13, 2025
FIFTH DIVISION
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 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
In re G.F., a Minor, ) ) Appeal from the (People of the State of Illinois, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County. Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) No. 21JA74 v. ) ) Honorable I.F., ) Jennifer Payne, ) Judge, presiding. Respondent-Appellant.) )
JUSTICE MITCHELL delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Mikva and Justice Oden Johnson concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The circuit court’s orders appointing a private guardian, vacating the Department of Child and Family Services’ guardianship, terminating wardship, and closing the case are affirmed where the circuit court’s determination of the child’s best interests was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 Respondent I.F. appeals the circuit court’s orders appointing D.V. as private guardian of
G.F. and terminating the Department of Child and Family Services’ wardship. On appeal, I.F.
argues the evidence was insufficient to support the circuit court’s findings. For the following
reasons, we affirm. No. 1-24-2535
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 G.F. is a minor born in January 2021 to mother I.F. and putative father D.H. Due to safety
concerns, the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) took G.F. into protective custody
and placed her with maternal aunt D.V. Although G.F. was born in Cook County, Illinois, I.F. now
resides in the state of Virginia.
¶5 I.F. suffered from serious mental health conditions both before and after G.F.’s birth. She
was hospitalized for mental health issues twice in 2020. There was a history of domestic violence
with both D.H. and I.F. One incident between I.F. and her mother involved I.F. pulling a knife on
her mother. She also had a history of substance abuse. Due to these ongoing concerns, the circuit
court found in September 2021 that I.F. was creating an “injurious environment” and that she
needed additional services for her mental health.
¶6 On December 6, 2021, the circuit court made G.F. a ward of the court due to I.F.’s inability
to care for her. The DCFS was granted guardianship. Initially, the permanency goal was for G.F.
to return home to I.F. within 12 months, depending on I.F.’s progress. In July 2022, another
permanency order was issued, also with a goal of G.F. returning home within 12 months. In
January 2023, the circuit court entered an order requiring the DCFS to pay I.F.’s travel expenses
so she could visit G.F. in Illinois once per month. Again the order stated the goal was to return
G.F. home within 12 months.
¶7 In August 2023, the permanency goal was changed to private guardianship. Despite I.F.
making some progress, she was not making adequate progress to allow G.F. to return home. She
had additional incidents of domestic violence and substance abuse, as well as another psychiatric
hospitalization.
-2- No. 1-24-2535
¶8 In August 2024, a “pipe like” object was found at I.F.’s home. Due to issues with getting
a drug test, I.F. missed her monthly visitations with G.F. in September, October, and November
of 2024.
¶9 On September 20, 2024, the DCFS petitioned to appoint D.V. as G.F.’s permanent guardian
and to vacate its own guardianship of G.F., terminate wardship, and close the case. The circuit
court held a hearing on November 22. I.F. was unable to attend due to a conflict but was
represented by counsel and did not ask for a continuance. The circuit court heard testimony from
G.F.’s caseworker and D.V., with whom G.F. had been living since shortly after birth. The
caseworker testified that D.V.’s home was safe and there was a strong relationship between G.F.
and D.V. She also stated that I.F’s mental health issues ruled out G.F. returning home and that it
was in G.F’s best interests for D.V. to become her guardian.
¶ 10 Before issuing its order, the circuit court reminded D.V. that this order would not
terminate I.F.’s right to in-person visitation. Although D.V. would not be financially responsible
for I.F.’s transportation as the DCFS had been, she was still required to allow in-person visits to
happen. The circuit court ultimately granted the petition for permanent guardianship. This timely
appeal followed. Ill. S. Ct. R. 303 (eff. July 1, 2017).
¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 12 Respondent I.F. argues that the circuit court’s findings were against the manifest weight of
the evidence because there was insufficient evidence to establish that appointing a private
guardianship and terminating the public wardship was in the child’s best interests. “A court’s
ruling is against the manifest weight of the evidence if it is unreasonable, arbitrary and not based
on the evidence, or when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident from the record.” (Internal
-3- No. 1-24-2535
quotation marks omitted.) In re Aaron L., 2013 IL App (1st) 122808, ¶ 28 (quoting In re
Guardianship Estate of Tatyanna T., 2012 IL App (1st) 112957, ¶ 19). “The inquiry on appeal is
not whether other conclusions are possible. Rather, the inquiry is whether the result reached is
reasonable.” Kresin v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 316 Ill. App. 3d 433, 441 (2000). “A strong
presumption in child custody cases favors circuit court decisions.” In re Kam. B., 2024 IL App
(1st) 240599, ¶ 50.
¶ 13 The circuit court’s decision to appoint a private guardian must be based on the best interests
of the child, which are superior to all other factors. In re V.M., 352 Ill. App. 3d 391, 397-98 (2004).
The circuit court must find that the best interests of the child require appointment of a guardian by
a preponderance of the evidence. Kam B., 2024 IL App (1st) 240599, ¶ 50. “Preponderance of the
evidence is defined as ‘evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence
which is offered in opposition to it.’ ” In re Aniylah B., 2016 IL App (1st) 153662, ¶ 41 (quoting
Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. Johnson, 211 Ill. App. 3d 359, 364 (1991)). The
Juvenile Court Act lists numerous factors that must be considered when determining what the best
interests of the child are, including: the physical safety of the child, the child’s background and
ties, the child’s sense of attachments, and the child’s need for permanence. 705 ILCS 405/1-
3(4.05)(a), (c), (d), (g) (West 2024).
¶ 14 Here, the circuit court considered that there were no concerns about G.F.’s physical safety
with D.V. as there had been with I.F. The circuit court also noted G.F.’s ties to D.V., including
that G.F. had lived with D.V. almost her whole life, and the permanence that a private guardian
would bring over remaining in wardship. Respondent acknowledges that “the court’s decision here
-4- No. 1-24-2535
was not directly contrary to the evidence that was presented,” and she does not contest the specific
bases for the circuit court’s conclusion.
¶ 15 Instead, respondent contends that the presented evidence was insufficient to establish that
the child’s best interests would be served by the private guardianship order. Respondent noted that
the DCFS will stop paying for her travel for in-person visitation when the wardship terminates.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2025 IL App (1st) 242535-U
No. 1-24-2535
Order filed June 13, 2025
FIFTH DIVISION
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 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
In re G.F., a Minor, ) ) Appeal from the (People of the State of Illinois, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County. Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) No. 21JA74 v. ) ) Honorable I.F., ) Jennifer Payne, ) Judge, presiding. Respondent-Appellant.) )
JUSTICE MITCHELL delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Mikva and Justice Oden Johnson concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The circuit court’s orders appointing a private guardian, vacating the Department of Child and Family Services’ guardianship, terminating wardship, and closing the case are affirmed where the circuit court’s determination of the child’s best interests was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 Respondent I.F. appeals the circuit court’s orders appointing D.V. as private guardian of
G.F. and terminating the Department of Child and Family Services’ wardship. On appeal, I.F.
argues the evidence was insufficient to support the circuit court’s findings. For the following
reasons, we affirm. No. 1-24-2535
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 G.F. is a minor born in January 2021 to mother I.F. and putative father D.H. Due to safety
concerns, the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) took G.F. into protective custody
and placed her with maternal aunt D.V. Although G.F. was born in Cook County, Illinois, I.F. now
resides in the state of Virginia.
¶5 I.F. suffered from serious mental health conditions both before and after G.F.’s birth. She
was hospitalized for mental health issues twice in 2020. There was a history of domestic violence
with both D.H. and I.F. One incident between I.F. and her mother involved I.F. pulling a knife on
her mother. She also had a history of substance abuse. Due to these ongoing concerns, the circuit
court found in September 2021 that I.F. was creating an “injurious environment” and that she
needed additional services for her mental health.
¶6 On December 6, 2021, the circuit court made G.F. a ward of the court due to I.F.’s inability
to care for her. The DCFS was granted guardianship. Initially, the permanency goal was for G.F.
to return home to I.F. within 12 months, depending on I.F.’s progress. In July 2022, another
permanency order was issued, also with a goal of G.F. returning home within 12 months. In
January 2023, the circuit court entered an order requiring the DCFS to pay I.F.’s travel expenses
so she could visit G.F. in Illinois once per month. Again the order stated the goal was to return
G.F. home within 12 months.
¶7 In August 2023, the permanency goal was changed to private guardianship. Despite I.F.
making some progress, she was not making adequate progress to allow G.F. to return home. She
had additional incidents of domestic violence and substance abuse, as well as another psychiatric
hospitalization.
-2- No. 1-24-2535
¶8 In August 2024, a “pipe like” object was found at I.F.’s home. Due to issues with getting
a drug test, I.F. missed her monthly visitations with G.F. in September, October, and November
of 2024.
¶9 On September 20, 2024, the DCFS petitioned to appoint D.V. as G.F.’s permanent guardian
and to vacate its own guardianship of G.F., terminate wardship, and close the case. The circuit
court held a hearing on November 22. I.F. was unable to attend due to a conflict but was
represented by counsel and did not ask for a continuance. The circuit court heard testimony from
G.F.’s caseworker and D.V., with whom G.F. had been living since shortly after birth. The
caseworker testified that D.V.’s home was safe and there was a strong relationship between G.F.
and D.V. She also stated that I.F’s mental health issues ruled out G.F. returning home and that it
was in G.F’s best interests for D.V. to become her guardian.
¶ 10 Before issuing its order, the circuit court reminded D.V. that this order would not
terminate I.F.’s right to in-person visitation. Although D.V. would not be financially responsible
for I.F.’s transportation as the DCFS had been, she was still required to allow in-person visits to
happen. The circuit court ultimately granted the petition for permanent guardianship. This timely
appeal followed. Ill. S. Ct. R. 303 (eff. July 1, 2017).
¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 12 Respondent I.F. argues that the circuit court’s findings were against the manifest weight of
the evidence because there was insufficient evidence to establish that appointing a private
guardianship and terminating the public wardship was in the child’s best interests. “A court’s
ruling is against the manifest weight of the evidence if it is unreasonable, arbitrary and not based
on the evidence, or when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident from the record.” (Internal
-3- No. 1-24-2535
quotation marks omitted.) In re Aaron L., 2013 IL App (1st) 122808, ¶ 28 (quoting In re
Guardianship Estate of Tatyanna T., 2012 IL App (1st) 112957, ¶ 19). “The inquiry on appeal is
not whether other conclusions are possible. Rather, the inquiry is whether the result reached is
reasonable.” Kresin v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 316 Ill. App. 3d 433, 441 (2000). “A strong
presumption in child custody cases favors circuit court decisions.” In re Kam. B., 2024 IL App
(1st) 240599, ¶ 50.
¶ 13 The circuit court’s decision to appoint a private guardian must be based on the best interests
of the child, which are superior to all other factors. In re V.M., 352 Ill. App. 3d 391, 397-98 (2004).
The circuit court must find that the best interests of the child require appointment of a guardian by
a preponderance of the evidence. Kam B., 2024 IL App (1st) 240599, ¶ 50. “Preponderance of the
evidence is defined as ‘evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence
which is offered in opposition to it.’ ” In re Aniylah B., 2016 IL App (1st) 153662, ¶ 41 (quoting
Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. Johnson, 211 Ill. App. 3d 359, 364 (1991)). The
Juvenile Court Act lists numerous factors that must be considered when determining what the best
interests of the child are, including: the physical safety of the child, the child’s background and
ties, the child’s sense of attachments, and the child’s need for permanence. 705 ILCS 405/1-
3(4.05)(a), (c), (d), (g) (West 2024).
¶ 14 Here, the circuit court considered that there were no concerns about G.F.’s physical safety
with D.V. as there had been with I.F. The circuit court also noted G.F.’s ties to D.V., including
that G.F. had lived with D.V. almost her whole life, and the permanence that a private guardian
would bring over remaining in wardship. Respondent acknowledges that “the court’s decision here
-4- No. 1-24-2535
was not directly contrary to the evidence that was presented,” and she does not contest the specific
bases for the circuit court’s conclusion.
¶ 15 Instead, respondent contends that the presented evidence was insufficient to establish that
the child’s best interests would be served by the private guardianship order. Respondent noted that
the DCFS will stop paying for her travel for in-person visitation when the wardship terminates.
She argues that requiring her to pay for travel will have the practical effect of eliminating her in-
person visits, and that this could in turn negatively impact the child. She contends that this
possibility was not considered by the circuit court, and that if it had been considered, there would
not have been a preponderance of the evidence to justify terminating wardship. However, in-person
visits are not a factor listed in the Juvenile Court Act for determining a child’s best interests. In-
person visits affect listed factors, such as “development of the child’s identity” and “continuity of
affection.” Id. § 1-3(4.05)(b), (d)(iv). The circuit court heard evidence that respondent’s in-person
visits were being supplemented by virtual visits, and that these virtual visits would continue
whether or not the DCFS was paying for travel. Although not a perfect substitute, virtual visits can
accomplish many of the same purposes as in-person visits.
¶ 16 Ultimately, respondent’s contention about the sufficiency of the evidence fails due to the
standard of review. There is an uncontested basis in the record that supports the circuit court’s
conclusion. Even if respondent’s argument about the possible effects of the DCFS no longer paying
for her travel was accepted as true, it would not establish that the opposite conclusion of the circuit
court’s finding was “clearly evident.” There was still unrefuted testimony that private guardianship
was in the child’s best interests and evidence explaining why D.V. would be an appropriate
-5- No. 1-24-2535
guardian for G.F. We therefore cannot say the circuit court’s determination in this case was against
the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 17 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 18 The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.
¶ 19 Affirmed.
-6-