In re Estate of Dylan R
Key Takeaways
- 1 Appellate court dismissed appeal where circuit court's order was administrative, not injunctive in nature.
- 2 Relief seeking to transfer custody and terminate guardianship does not preserve status quo under Rule 307(a)(1).
- 3 Relevant for probate and family law attorneys navigating interlocutory appeals of guardianship and custody orders.
Summary
Raniesha Veal was appointed guardian of minor Dylan R. in September 2025. Dylan R.'s natural father, Rayskee Roundtree, filed pro se motions seeking emergency custody and discharge of the guardianship. On November 12, 2025, the circuit court found no emergency existed, declined to rule immediately, and continued the matter to its previously scheduled January 12, 2026 date. Roundtree appealed, characterizing the order as a refusal to grant an injunction and invoking appellate jurisdiction under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1).
The First District Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court independently assessed its jurisdiction and found the November 12 order was administrative rather than injunctive in nature. Critically, the court reasoned that Roundtree's requested relief — enjoining Veal from interfering with his custody — would not preserve the status quo but would alter it, since Roundtree had no custody and Veal was the court-appointed guardian. Because the circuit court made no ruling on the merits and merely continued the matter to its scheduled date, the order was ministerial and not subject to interlocutory appeal under Rule 307(a)(1).
For practicing attorneys, this case reinforces that interlocutory appeals under Rule 307(a)(1) require a genuinely injunctive order — one preserving the status quo — not merely a continuance or administrative scheduling order. Attorneys should carefully assess whether the substance of a circuit court order is truly injunctive before pursuing an interlocutory appeal, particularly in guardianship and custody proceedings.
Key Holdings
1. An appellate court lacks jurisdiction under Rule 307(a)(1) where the circuit court's order is administrative or ministerial in nature, rather than injunctive.
2. Relief that would alter the status quo — such as terminating an existing guardianship and transferring custody to a party who does not currently have custody — is not injunctive in nature for purposes of Rule 307(a)(1).
3. Whether an order is injunctive in nature is determined by the substance of the action and the relief sought, not the label or form of the pleading.
4. A circuit court order that declines to make an emergency ruling and continues a matter to its scheduled hearing date is an administrative order and is not subject to interlocutory appeal.