Fleckles v. Diamond
2015 IL App (2d) 141229
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2015Background
- Fleckles petitioned under the Parentage Act to establish paternity and obtain joint custody and visitation for an unborn child.
- Diamond moved to strike and dismiss arguing Illinois lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because Colorado was the child’s home state.
- The child was born in Colorado on September 15, 2014, after the petition was filed in Illinois.
- The trial court ruled Illinois had jurisdiction; Diamond appealed seeking dismissal of the custody portion.
- Colorado proceeding followed the Illinois ruling, with a magistrate dismissing Diamond’s Colorado paternity petition; Illinois custody issue remains central on appeal.
- This appeal holds that the custody portion must be dismissed because the child’s home state is Colorado and pre-birth custody determinations are deferred until birth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois had subject-matter jurisdiction over custody under UCCJEA | Fleckles contends Illinois retains jurisdiction because he filed first and because the child’s home state had not yet been established pre-birth. | Diamond argues the UCCJEA assigns home-state jurisdiction to the birth state (Colorado) and Illinois should not adjudicate custody. | Custody portion dismissed; home-state priority given to Colorado after birth. |
| Whether the Parentage Act may be joined with a UCCJEA custody action | Parentage action can be joined with custody under 750 ILCS 45/9(a). | UCCJEA custody jurisdiction should govern initial custody determinations, possibly separate from unborn-child paternity. | Petition may join custody, but initial custody determination should defer to birth-state home state; Illinois custody portion dismissed. |
| Whether pre-birth custody determinations fall within UCCJEA jurisdiction | No clear home state existed pre-birth; thus UCCJEA analysis should rely on significant connections. | UCCJEA home-state rule governs initial custody; pre-birth proceedings should be deferred. | Deferred until birth; Colorado became home state; Illinois erred in applying significant-connection analysis pre-birth. |
| Whether the Illinois court’s reliance on significant-connection factors was correct | Significant-connection analysis applicable only if no home state; pre-birth absence defeats home-state claim. | Illinois had asserted continuity and connections to Illinois and should retain jurisdiction. | Incorrect under UCCJEA; home-state approach governs and custody portion must be dismissed. |
| Whether subject matter jurisdiction was constitutionally adequate for the petition overall | Subject-matter jurisdiction exists and is based on the Parentage Act and UCCJEA mix. | Jurisdiction should align with UCCJEA birth-state home state; Illinois error in custody portion. | Court had subject-matter jurisdiction; however, custody determination must be dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re the Parentage of John M., 212 Ill. 2d 253 (Ill. 2004) (cites public policy supporting child support and parentage actions)
- In re D.S., 217 Ill. 2d 306 (Ill. 2005) (UCCJEA home-state construction for unborn child context)
- In re Joseph V.D., 373 Ill. App. 3d 559 (Ill. App. 2007) (articulates home-state priority and jurisdictional principles)
- Waltenburg v. Waltenburg, 270 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. App. 2008) (pre-birth custody claims cannot confer UCCJEA jurisdiction)
- Gray v. Gray, 139 So. 3d 802 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (home-state deferment until birth; bifurcated proceedings enduring approach)