In re Jamari R.
2017 IL App (1st) 160850
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Jamari (born 2007) entered DCFS custody; initial 2007 petition mis‑spelled the child’s and mother’s names and listed father as unknown; service by publication was used.
- Adjudication (Nov. 2, 2007) and dispositional (Sept. 18, 2008) orders made Jamari a ward of the court and placed him with DCFS.
- In 2014 the mother identified Keith B. as a possible father; DNA testing (Sept. 24, 2014) confirmed paternity and the TPR petition was amended to name Keith.
- Keith was incarcerated throughout much of the proceedings (projected release 2018); he was appointed counsel June 19, 2014, and participated in the TPR hearings beginning Oct. 8, 2015.
- The trial court found Keith unfit (Feb. 29, 2016) for failure to maintain reasonable interest and progress toward reunification and then found termination of parental rights in Jamari’s best interest; father appealed only the termination order arguing earlier adjudication/dispositional orders were void for defective service by publication.
- The appellate court addressed (1) its jurisdiction to consider attacks on the 2007/2008 orders collaterally, and (2) whether the father’s late challenge to service was barred by laches; it affirmed the TPR order because laches barred the father's attack on the earlier orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State/GAL) | Defendant's Argument (Keith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to consider a collateral attack alleging earlier adjudication/dispositional orders are void | Jurisdiction exists because the father appealed the final TPR order; a void order can be attacked where appellate jurisdiction otherwise exists | Father contends void earlier orders may be attacked at any time and thus this appeal may reach them | Court: Jurisdiction exists to consider voidness collaterally where an appeal of a final order is properly before the court |
| Whether the 2007/2008 adjudication and dispositional orders are void for lack of personal jurisdiction due to defective service by publication | Service by publication was sufficient and/or any objection was waived by appearance; prior proceedings supported service efforts | Service by publication was defective (DCFS/State failed to exercise due diligence; publication misspelled names), so prior orders are void and termination based on them violated due process | Court did not decide merits of defective service because father's attack was barred by laches; therefore TPR stands |
| Whether laches bars the father’s delayed challenge to personal jurisdiction of the earlier orders | Laches applies because father knew of the proceedings, participated for ~1.5–2 years after paternity was established, yet waited to challenge jurisdiction, prejudicing the child/foster family | Father argues he did not timely challenge earlier orders but a void order can be attacked at any time and adoption not finalized so laches inapplicable | Held: Laches applies—father unreasonably delayed and prejudice to child/family established; his attack is barred |
| Effect of laches ruling on termination appeal | N/A | N/A (father raised only service/jurisdiction issue) | Because laches bars the jurisdictional attack, the court affirmed the termination order; no need to rule on validity of original service |
Key Cases Cited
- Burtell v. First Charter Service Corp., 76 Ill.2d 427 (discusses what prior orders are reviewable as steps leading to appealed judgment)
- EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Kemp, 2012 IL 113419 (void-order principle does not by itself confer appellate jurisdiction)
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill.2d 291 (voidness may be raised at any time but must be raised within a proceeding properly before the court)
- People v. Thompson, 209 Ill.2d 19 (appellate court may correct void judgments when the matter is properly before it)
- People v. Smith, 228 Ill.2d 95 (notice of appeal must specify judgments appealed from; rule construed liberally)
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (jurisdictional principles regarding void judgments)
- In re Adoption of Miller, 106 Ill. App.3d 1025 (applying laches to bar late attack on adoption/parental-rights judgments)
- Pyle v. Ferrell, 12 Ill.2d 547 (laches can bar attack on alleged void instruments)
- In re Miller, 84 Ill. App.3d 199 (laches barred late attack on guardianship despite defective publication)
- Rodriguez v. Koschny, 57 Ill. App.3d 355 (application of laches where delay disrupts stable family unit)