From Ken, regarding GAL’s and guardianships and jurisdiction
The Court must first determine in every case if it has jurisdiction. If it has jurisdiction it has inherent powers to address the matters that come before it in the pending “case and controversy.” The key words are “case and controversy” After the appointment of a plenary guardian there is nothing more to do except supervise the plenary guardian.
A guardian ad litem
functions as the “eyes and ears of the court” and not as the ward’s attorney. In re Guardianship of Mabry,
281 Ill.App.3d 76, 88, 216 Ill.Dec. 848, 666 N.E.2d 16 (1996), citing In re Marriage of Wycoff,
266 Ill.App.3d 408, 415–16, 203 Ill.Dec. 338, 639 N.E.2d 897 (1994). The traditional role of the guardian ad litem
is not to advocate for what the ward wants but, instead, to make a recommendation to the court as to what is in the ward’s best interests. Mabry,
281 Ill.App.3d at 88, 216 Ill.Dec. 848, 666 N.E.2d 16. The role of the guardian ad litem
is thus in contrast to the role of the plenary guardian of the person appointed pursuant to the Probate Act. Under section 11a–17 of the Probate Act, the plenary guardian makes decisions on behalf of the ward and must, in general, conform those decisions “as closely as possible to what the ward, if competent, would have done or intended under the circumstances.” 755 ILCS 5/11a–17(e) (West 2000). See also In re Marriage of Burgess,
189 Ill.2d 270, 278–79, 244 Ill.Dec. 379, 725 N.E.2d 1266 (2000) (guardian must generally “make decisions on behalf of a ward in accordance with the ward’s previously expressed wishes”).
In re Mark W., 228 Ill. 2d 365, 374, 888 N.E.2d 15, 20 (2008)
Now one would think that a GAL is supposed to be the “eyes and ears” and not take a side, not isolate a ward, not allow any of her property to be destroyed by the PG’s atty, PS, but it happened.
All of it happened.
Nothing was reported to the court, there is nothing in the court’s files indicating any concern on the part of the GAL’s.
How could this be you ask?
It is most certainly clear that everytime a GAL ticks off someone in the family, they make a bundle. They sell the ward’s paid for home for atty’s fees, they foment controversy, they get right in the middle of everything.
The other daughter is and has basically been pro se for 95% of this proceeding. The GAL’s are counting on that too.
It seems to me, when these controversies are involved, perhaps the senior and her family have a constitutional right to an atty–and the Probate Court should pay for that, not the senior or family when wrongs have been committed. This is especially so when the attys involved will be asking the estate for reimbursement in the case.
It is my opinion that once it became clear there was a conflict of interest with the GAL’s and the other daughter, the GAL’s should have been replaced and the case reassigned a new judge and the other daughter should have been appointed a pro bono atty if she asked for one. That would have made the proceeding much fairer and ensured justice.