In re Jamari R.
2017 IL App (1st) 160850
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Jamari (born 2007) was adjudicated neglected/abused in 2007; dispositional orders made him a ward and placed with DCFS; permanency goal later set to termination of parental rights (TPR).
- Early pleadings and publications repeatedly misspelled Jamari’s and the mother’s names; fathers were listed as unknown and service by publication was used in 2007.
- The mother later identified Keith B. as a possible father in April 2014; DNA testing in September 2014 confirmed Keith B. as Jamari’s father and the TPR petition was amended to name him.
- Keith B. was incarcerated throughout these proceedings; counsel was appointed and parentage testing and integrated assessments occurred; TPR proceedings on unfitness and best interest ran in 2015–2016.
- The trial court found the mother and father unfit and terminated Keith B.’s parental rights on February 29, 2016. Keith B. appealed solely challenging personal jurisdiction/service for the 2007 adjudicatory and 2008 dispositional orders and argued the earlier orders were void.
- The appellate court concluded it had jurisdiction to consider claims of voidness raised in the appeal from the final TPR order but held Keith B.’s delayed challenge was barred by laches and therefore affirmed the termination order without deciding whether service by publication was defective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Keith B.) | Defendant's Argument (State/GAL) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. May the appellate court consider whether the 2007 adjudicatory and 2008 dispositional orders are void for lack of personal jurisdiction when appeal is from 2016 TPR judgment? | The earlier orders are void for defective service and may be attacked at any time; appellate court should consider them. | Void-orders may be attacked only where appellate jurisdiction otherwise exists; but here appellate jurisdiction exists because of the timely appeal from the TPR judgment. | Appellate jurisdiction exists to consider alleged voidness because there was a timely appeal from the final TPR judgment. |
| 2. Is the father’s attack on personal jurisdiction barred by laches? | Laches does not apply (argues timeliness or that adoption not finalized). | Father waited nearly two years after being identified and after counsel was appointed; delay was unreasonable and prejudicial to child and foster family. | Held laches applies: father unreasonably delayed and prejudice to child/foster family bars challenge to prior orders. |
| 3. Was service by publication defective (due diligence; misspelled names) and did father waive service objections by appearing? | Service by publication was defective (insufficient diligent search; publication misidentified names); appearance did not waive defects. | Service was adequate; alternatively father waived service claims by participating without timely objection. | Court did not decide the merits of service claims because laches barred the challenge; termination affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004) (a void order may be attacked at any time and appellate court may correct voidness when the proceeding is properly before it)
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291 (2003) (limits on appellate intervention when procedural rules have not been complied with; voidness must be raised in a properly pending proceeding)
- EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Kemp, 2012 IL 113419 (2012) (void-order principle does not itself confer appellate jurisdiction where it otherwise is absent)
- Burtell v. First Charter Service Corp., 76 Ill. 2d 427 (1979) (scope of appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to judgments identified in the notice of appeal, but prior steps in the procedural progression may be reviewed)
- In re Adoption of Miller, 106 Ill. App. 3d 1025 (1982) (laches may bar collateral attacks on judgments in adoption/parental-rights matters to protect stability of the child’s family)