Child Law

(Silverstein, D-Chicago) creates a rebuttable presumption that a will or codicil is void if it was executed or modified after the testator is adjudicated a disabled adult. The rebuttable presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the testator had the capacity to execute the will codicil at the time the will or codicil was executed. The rebuttable presumption doesn’t apply if the following occurs: If a verified petition by the plenary or limited guardian of the estate or at the request of the ward that is accompanied by current physician’s report that states the ward possesses testamentary capacity, the court may enter an order authorizing the ward to execute a will or codicil. In so ordering, the court must authorize the guardian to retain independent counsel for the ward with whom the ward may execute or modify a will or codicil. This subsection applies only to wills or codicils executed or modified after the effective date of this act. Scheduled for hearing in Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday afternoon.

The immediate issue of funding for court reporters, childcare assistance, and the Department of Corrections is being negotiated by Governor Rauner and the four legislative leaders. As was reported in the Pantagraph, “A child care program for low-income parents needs $300 million to make it through the end of the year. The Illinois Department of Corrections says it will begin running out of money to pay guards in mid-April. And, funds to pay court reporters are running dry, potentially resulting in a stoppage of court activity.” This week I was told that legislators have noticed that they are not hearing as much from constituents on the shortage for court reporting funding as the other two problems. I was told that they were unaware of the impact that this would have on county detention of defendants awaiting trial and possible Speedy Trial problems. If you have an opportunity, you may wish to bring this up with your state senator and representative. Their telephone numbers may be found on the General Assembly website at www.ilga.gov/ Thank you.

(Pritchard, R-Sycamore) provides that in determining the issue of dissipation, the court may consider a party’s conviction for domestic battery, aggravated domestic battery, violation of an order of protection, or any forcible felony in which the victim was the opposing party in the proceedings. Assigned to House Rules Committee.

(David Harris, R-Mount Prospect) amends the Probate Act of 1975 affecting disabled adults. It provides that unless a guardian of the person of a disabled adult is specifically authorized by court order, the guardian may not restrict the personal rights of the ward, including, but not limited to, the right to receive visitors, telephone calls, and personal mail. Just introduced and referred to House Rules Committee.

(David Harris, R-Mount Prospect) amends the Probate Act of 1975 affecting disabled adults. It provides that a temporary guardian has the limited powers and duties (instead of “all of the powers and duties”) of a guardian of the person or of the estate that are specifically enumerated by court order. Just introduced and referred to House Rules Committee.

(Barickman, R-Bloomington-Normal) intends to simplify the procedures for an Illinois person who is subpoenaed for discovery purposes from an out-of-state court. The Act creates establishes a simple, clerical procedure under which a subpoena from an out-of-state court can be used to issue a discovery subpoena in Illinois. Since its introduction in 2007, 33 states and the District of Columbia have adopted this Act, including our neighboring states of Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, and Iowa. Under the Act, the out-of-state subpoena will be presented to an Illinois circuit court clerk. The clerk will then issue an Illinois subpoena that incorporates the terms of the out-of-state subpoena. The Act specifically states that a request for the issuance of a subpoena doesn’t constitute an appearance in an Illinois court. Motions brought to enforce, quash, or modify an out-of-state subpoena or for protective orders would be brought in Illinois and governed by Illinois’ discovery laws. The Act specifically states that the relevant Illinois Supreme Court Rules and statutes apply to this Act, such as Rules 204 and 237 and 735 ILCS 5/2-1101.