In re N.C.
2014 IL 116532
| Ill. | 2014Background
- N.C. was born to Nichole G. and, four days later, Alfred C. signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity (VAP).
- DCFS took N.C. into custody; a juvenile neglect petition was filed naming Nichole as mother and Alfred as father under the Juvenile Court Act.
- DNA testing later showed Alfred was not N.C.’s biological father; the State sought a declaration of nonpaternity and removal of Alfred from the case.
- The trial court granted the State’s nonpaternity motion and dismissed Alfred, then proceeded with adjudication finding N.C. neglected and Nichole unfit.
- Appellate court reversed, holding the State lacked standing and that the proceedings should include Alfred; this Court affirmed, remanding for a new neglect hearing.
- The State argued standing under parens patriae and sections 2-13(6), 6-9(1) of the Juvenile Court Act and sections 6, 7(a), 7(b) of the Parentage Act; the Department intervened; the GAL and amici filed briefs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State has standing to address parentage in a neglect proceeding | State relies on parens patriae and Juvenile Court Act sections 2-13(6) and 6-9(1). | Nichole argues no standing; parentage issues must follow the Parentage Act; State cannot circumvent it. | Yes; State has standing to raise parentage in neglect proceedings, but must comply with the Parentage Act. |
| Whether the State may challenge a VAP under section 6(d) of the Parentage Act | State may invoke section 6(d) to contest the VAP on fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. | State cannot use section 6(d); it applies only to signatories, not to the State, and is narrowly limited. | No; section 6(d) cannot be used by the State to defeat a VAP. |
| Whether the State may pursue paternity under section 7(a) or 7(b) of the Parentage Act | State contends it may establish or disestablish paternity under section 7; GAL supported disestablishment. | State is not authorized to bring a disestablishment under section 7(b); the action was not brought by authorized parties or on verified pleadings. | State cannot pursue disestablishment under section 7(b); GAL may pursue on remand; establishment under 7(a) not addressed here. |
| What is the proper framework and remand direction given the Parentage Act controls | State’s actions should comply with the Parentage Act; remand to allow proper proceedings. | Parentage Act precludes the State’s challenged under 6(d)/(7)(b); GAL on remand may proceed within Act’s framework. | Remand with directions for a new neglect hearing that includes Alfred and Nichole; GAL may pursue compliant paternity actions on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Department of Public Aid v. Smith, 212 Ill. 2d 389 (2004) (limited challenge to a VAP under section 6(d))
- In re D.S., 198 Ill. 2d 309 (2001) (parens patriae authority and state role in juvenile proceedings)
- In re J.J., 142 Ill. 2d 1 (1991) (state duty to prosecute in juvenile court context)
- In re Paternity of John M., 212 Ill. 2d 253 (2004) (no express best-interests prerequisite before paternity adjudication)
- In re Paternity of an Unknown Minor, 2011 IL App (1st) 102445 (2011) (VAP does not bar paternity actions under section 7)