## Facts

- Cynthia (“Cindy”) Schmidt suffered severe head trauma in an April 1997 automobile accident and lacked decision-making capacity (described as comatose/vegetative).
- Cindy’s brother, William Pilarski, filed a petition under the Illinois Probate Act to be appointed guardian of Cindy.
- Cindy’s husband, Thomas Schmidt, sought appointment as guardian (filing a counterpetition).
- William later amended his request, asking the court to appoint Cindy’s sister, Sheryl Strack, instead of William.
- The circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing and considered the guardian ad litem’s report concerning Cindy’s condition and the competing petitions.
- The circuit court found Cindy to be a disabled person and found Thomas qualified to serve.
- The circuit court appointed Thomas as plenary guardian of Cindy’s person and estate and denied William’s petition to appoint Sheryl.
- Because future end-of-life decisions were possible, the circuit court added conditions tied to the Illinois Health Care Surrogate Act, including requiring Thomas to provide advance notice to family members before taking action to withdraw life-sustaining treatment and requiring that any such action be based on current medical evaluations/certifications.
- The order also granted Sheryl reasonable access to Cindy’s medical records but did not give her medical decision-making authority.
- William appealed, challenging both the selection of Thomas and the trial court’s use of the Probate Act and the Health Care Surrogate Act in framing the guardianship order.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by effectively giving Thomas a preference because he was Cindy’s spouse, even though the Probate Act and the Health Care Surrogate Act do not create a statutory spousal priority for guardianship appointment?
2. Did the trial court fail to determine, under the Probate Act and the Health Care Surrogate Act, which proposed guardian was most likely to act in Cindy’s best interests and within the statutory limits for medical decisions, including any decision about life-sustaining treatment?

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s order appointing Thomas Schmidt as plenary guardian of Cindy’s person and estate and denying William Pilarski’s petition to appoint Sheryl Strack.
- The court rejected the claim that the circuit court applied an improper “spousal preference,” explaining that the governing statutes do not create a formal priority that controls the appointment decision.
- The court held that a spouse may still be selected if the evidence supports that choice under the Probate Act’s best-interests and least-restrictive framework.
- The court found no abuse of discretion where the circuit court held an evidentiary hearing, considered the guardian ad litem’s report, found Thomas qualified, and added protective conditions requiring notice to family and reliance on current medical information for any action under the Health Care Surrogate Act.

## Legal Principles

- A guardianship appointment for a disabled adult is guided by the ward’s best interests and the least restrictive form of guardianship consistent with the ward’s welfare under the Illinois Probate Act.
- Illinois law does not provide an automatic, controlling preference for a spouse to be appointed guardian; the court may consider the marital relationship as part of the overall best-interests inquiry.
- Selection of a guardian is committed to the trial court’s discretion; an appellate court reviews the appointment for abuse of discretion and gives weight to the trial court’s evaluation of the witnesses and evidence.
- Where a guardian may later face decisions about withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, the court may condition the guardianship order to require compliance with the Illinois Health Care Surrogate Act, including family notice and reliance on current medical evaluation/certification.

## Conclusion

In re Schmidt affirmed the appointment of a disabled woman’s husband as plenary guardian over a sibling’s competing petition because Illinois law does not grant an automatic spousal priority, and the record supported the trial court’s determination that the husband was qualified and an appropriate choice under a best-interests, least-restrictive analysis, with added safeguards requiring family notice and current medical support for any future action involving life-sustaining treatment.


In re Schmidt, 699 N.E.2d 1123 (1998)