In re G.M.
977 N.E.2d 791
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Petitioner A.M. filed May 19, 2009, a petition to determine a father–child relationship with G.M., naming E.M.B. as father.
- F.J.M., the husband, moved to dismiss, arguing the petition was barred by the two-year 8(a)(3) limitations period for nonpaternity actions.
- Trial court held petitioner must first disestablish the putative father's paternity and applied the 2-year limit on nonexistence actions.
- Petitioner argued the action sought to establish a paternity relationship and thus falls under the 20-year 8(a)(1) period.
- Appellate court reversed, holding the petition is a section 7(a) action with a 20-year limitations period, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What limitations period governs the petition? | A.M. argues for 20-year limit (8(a)(1)) since seeking existence of relationship. | Respondents argue 2-year limit (8(a)(3)) for nonexistence actions. | 20-year limitations period applies; not time-barred. |
| Does labeling affect classification as 7(a) vs 7(b)? | Petition seeks existence of father–child relationship. | The petition also seeks nonexistence relief, implying 7(b). | Substance controls; petition is a 7(a) action seeking existence. |
| Must a putative father's disestablishment occur before a paternity action? | Disestablishment not a prerequisite; mother may pursue paternity action directly. | Disestablishment should precede the action against the biological father. | Disestablishment not required; action can proceed against biological father. |
| Does legislative history support the longer period? | Longer period promotes child's best interests and equal protection. | No explicit need to extend beyond 2 years after majority. | Legislative history supports 8(a)(1) 20-year period for paternity actions. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Paternity of an Unknown Minor, 2011 IL App (1st) 102445 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2011) (longer 20-year period governs paternity actions seeking existence)
- J.S.A. v. M.H., 343 Ill. App. 3d 217 (Ill. App. 3d Dist. 2003) (section 7(a) permits action regardless of presumptions)
- In re Marriage of Adams, 297 Ill. App. 3d 156 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 1998) (supports action to establish paternity over disestablishment first)
- Klawitter v. Crawford, 185 Ill. App. 3d 778 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 1989) (historical purposes of Act; discrimination concerns)
- Padilla v. Vazquez, 223 Ill. App. 3d 1018 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1991) (pleading substance governs characterization of action)