In re Dar. C.
2011 IL 111083
| Ill. | 2011Background
- The McLean County circuit court terminated respondent Daryl Crockett’s parental rights to Dar. C. and Das. C. by default after service by publication under the Juvenile Court Act.
- The publication notice sought to confer personal jurisdiction where respondent’s current address was not known and a diligent inquiry was required by 705 ILCS 405/2-16(2).
- The State’s searches largely relied on computerized databases and letters to potential addresses, with limited direct inquiry to actual leads such as relatives, telephone numbers, or social-security-related information.
- A separate McLean County child support action later located respondent at a Lake Villa treatment center, showing the State knew or could have learned his whereabouts.
- Respondent argued publication notices were invalid for lack of a diligent inquiry and for actual knowledge of his location in the termination action, rendering the termination void.
- The appellate court affirmed, but the supreme court reversed, vacated, and remanded to determine the proper scope of the diligent inquiry and its impact on personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the State perform a diligent inquiry under 2-16(2)? | Crockett | Crockett | No; diligent inquiry not satisfied. |
| Was the September 2006 publication notice valid? | People | Crockett | Invalid; did not satisfy 2-16(2). |
| Is the November 2007 publication valid given actual knowledge from a concurrent case? | People | Crockett | Invalid; actual knowledge in related action undermined publication. |
| Does the earlier publication affect later steps or the overall jurisdiction for termination? | People | Crockett | Publication alone insufficient to confer jurisdiction; order void. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.W., 232 Ill. 2d 408 (Ill. 2009) (jurisdiction and service-by-publication standards; due process necessity)
- In re Antwan L., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1119 (Ill. App. 2006) (voidness of judgments without proper service; due process)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process and notice requirements for notice and service)
- In re A.S.B., 293 Ill. App. 3d 836 (Ill. App. 1997) (standard for diligent inquiry in 2-16(2) contexts)
- In re M.H., 196 Ill. 2d 356 (Ill. 2001) (due-process implications in termination cases)