In re K.S.

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: May 14, 2026
• Docket: 4-26-0039
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2026 IL App (4th) 260039-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-26-0039 May 14, 2026 not precedent except in the Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed IN THE APPELLATE COURT 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

In re K.S., a Minor ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Adams County Petitioner-Appellee, ) No. 22JA52 v. ) Gary S., ) Honorable Respondent-Appellant). ) Talmadge “Tad” Brenner, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE GRISCHOW delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Doherty and Vancil concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The appellate court dismissed the appeal for respondent’s failure to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).

¶2 Respondent, Gary S., appeals from an order striking a notice of appeal he filed on

November 25, 2025. Due to respondent’s substantial failure to comply with Illinois Supreme

Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020), we strike his brief and dismiss the appeal.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 Respondent is the father of K.S., a minor who is the subject of an ongoing

juvenile proceeding. In March 2025, the trial court entered an order prohibiting respondent from

filing materials with the court without first receiving leave of court due to his prior numerous,

lengthy, and repetitive filings. (Respondent’s prolific filing was discussed in a prior appeal. See

In re K.S., 2025 IL App (4th) 241491-U, ¶¶ 19-27.) ¶5 On November 5, 2025, the trial court entered an order striking respondent’s filing

designated as a petition for relief from judgment (see 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2024)), which

was errantly filed without leave of court. On November 25, 2025, respondent filed a notice of

appeal, challenging the court’s order striking his petition. The appeal was filed and docketed as

appellate court case No. 4-25-1276.

¶6 On December 30, 2025, the trial court entered an order striking respondent’s

notice of appeal (along with a similar notice of appeal filed by K.S.’s mother, who is not a party

to this appeal). The court stated:

“[T]his case was set for hearing on the issue of termination of parental rights on

November 24, 2025. Hearing on the pending Petition for Termination of Parental

Rights is scheduled to take place on January 2, 2026. This court further FINDS

and CONCLUDES that these filings of Notices of Appeal were premature,

improper, and improvident and hereby STRIKES father’s November 25, 2025,

Notice of Appeal.”

After being informed of the trial court’s order striking the notice of appeal, this court dismissed

case No. 4-25-1276 accordingly.

¶7 Respondent filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s order striking his

prior notice of appeal on December 21, 2025, after receiving leave of court.

¶8 This appeal followed.

¶9 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 10 Rule 341(h) governs the requirements for appellant briefs to this court. “[T]he

procedural rules governing the content and form of appellate briefs are mandatory and not

suggestions.” Litwin v. County of La Salle, 2021 IL App (3d) 200410, ¶ 3. Respondent’s pro se

-2- status does not relieve him of his obligations to comply with supreme court rules. See Gillard v.

Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 2019 IL App (1st) 182348, ¶ 45 (“A pro se litigant must

comply with the rules of procedure required of attorneys, and a court will not apply a more

lenient standard to pro se litigants.”). “The purpose of the rules is to require parties before a

reviewing court to present clear and orderly arguments so that the court can properly ascertain

and dispose of the issues involved.” Venturella v. Dreyfuss, 2017 IL App (1st) 160565, ¶ 22. “A

brief that lacks any substantial conformity to the pertinent supreme court rules may justifiably be

stricken.” Hall v. Naper Gold Hospitality LLC, 2012 IL App (2d) 111151, ¶ 7. “[T]he striking of

an appellate brief, in whole or in part, is a harsh sanction and is appropriate only when the

alleged violations of procedural rules interfere with or preclude review.” (Internal quotation

marks omitted.) In re Detention of Powell, 217 Ill. 2d 123, 132 (2005). Unfortunately, in this

case, respondent’s failures preclude us from undertaking any meaningful review.

¶ 11 Although respondent failed to comply with several of the requirements of

appellant briefing, the most fatal error to our review is his failure to include pages six and seven

of his appellant brief. These pages appear to have contained the majority of his argument. Rule

341(h)(7) requires an appellant’s brief contain: “Argument, which shall contain the contentions

of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the

record relied on.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). The only argument that was filed

with this court was a paragraph pertaining to prejudice, which contained no citations to authority

or complete citations to the record. “Points not argued are forfeited and shall not be raised in the

reply brief, in oral argument, or on petition for rehearing.” Id. It is impossible for this court to

review respondent’s arguments on appeal if he does not file them with this court.

¶ 12 Respondent was put on notice of the missing pages when the State filed its

-3- appellee’s brief. The State clearly addressed the issue of the missing pages, stating, “It appears

that the brief is missing pages, as it goes from page 5 to page 8. [Citation]. The State confirmed

with the clerk’s office that the brief was filed without pages 6 and 7.” Respondent was free to file

a motion for leave to file an amended brief. He made no attempt to do so. In fact, respondent

filed a reply brief addressing the State’s other arguments on appeal, but he did not explain the

missing pages or attempt to correct the error.

¶ 13 Respondent did argue in his reply brief that his opening brief “did, at minimum,

identify the nature of this appeal, frame the notice-of-appeal strike issue, invoke Rule 301and

303, point to the filing-history problem, and disclose that the record remained unsettled because

the underlying § 2-1401 materials had been omitted and Rule 329 correction efforts were still

pending.” This “minimum” is not equivalent to the minimum standard for appellant briefs. It is a

long-established principle that the appellate court “is entitled to have issues clearly defined with

pertinent authority cited and cohesive arguments presented [citation], and it is not a repository

into which an appellant may foist the burden of argument and research.” Obert v. Saville, 253 Ill.

App. 3d 677, 682 (1993). We will not take respondent’s disjointed assertions and form them into

appellate argument for him.

¶ 14 As respondent’s material omission of pages in his appellant’s brief makes review

(or even discernment) of his claims impossible, we strike respondent’s brief for failure to comply

with Rule 341(h)(7) and dismiss the appeal.

¶ 15 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 16 For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.

¶ 17 Dismissed.

-4-