In re A.A.
2015 IL 118605
| Ill. | 2015Background
- A.A. was born April 26, 2013; mother Caitlin and Matthew signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity (VAP) soon after birth; Caitlin’s husband Jakob signed a denial of paternity.
- DCFS removed A.A. and three siblings after alleged neglect and filed a juvenile neglect petition; DNA testing was ordered during the proceedings.
- DNA results established Matthew is not A.A.’s biological father; testing indicated deceased Cort H. was the biological father (confirmed via grandparents’ DNA).
- The guardian ad litem (GAL) filed a petition under section 7(b) of the Parentage Act to declare the nonexistence of the parent-child relationship between Matthew and A.A. and to vacate the VAP; the trial court granted the petition and vacated the VAP.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding no best-interests-of-the-child determination was required before disestablishing paternity based on DNA; the Illinois Supreme Court granted leave and affirmed the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a best-interests-of-the-child determination is required before a court disestablishes a parent-child relationship under the Parentage Act (vacating a VAP) | Matthew: Court must consider the child’s best interests and protect nonbiological parental relationships before vacating paternity based solely on genetics | GAL/State: Parentage Act provides the statutory procedure; if DNA shows the alleged father is not biological father, the court must resolve paternity accordingly without a pre-disestablishment best-interests hearing | Held: No. The Parentage Act does not require a best-interests determination prior to disestablishing parentage; first step is legal determination of parentage based on statutory procedures and DNA results. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Parentage of John M., 212 Ill. 2d 253 (Ill. 2004) (Parentage Act governs establishment/disestablishment of parentage; no pre-testing best-interests requirement)
- In re D.L., 191 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2000) (court will not read into statutes requirements not expressed by legislature)
- In re Christopher K., 217 Ill. 2d 348 (Ill. 2005) (statutory language is primary indicator of legislative intent)
- First Am. Bank Corp. v. Henry, 239 Ill. 2d 511 (Ill. 2011) (questions of statutory construction are reviewed de novo)
- In re Parentage of G.E.M., 382 Ill. App. 3d 1102 (Ill. App. 2008) (addressed limits on a mother’s challenge to a VAP where the VAP father remained legal father)