In re Parentage of A.H.
2017 IL App (1st) 133703
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Wipaporn (mother) obtained a Thai court judgment adjudicating Harlow (respondent) the biological/legal father of triplets conceived via GIFT and awarding child and educational support; Thailand’s supreme court affirmed and issued a certificate of finality.
- Wipaporn petitioned Cook County to recognize and enroll the Thai judgment under comity; Harlow moved to dismiss and later answered asserting defenses including fraud and lack of a full and fair hearing in Thailand.
- Harlow argued Illinois public policy (relying on section 3(b) of the repealed Illinois Parentage Act) precluded treating a sperm donor as a legal father when the donor is not the woman’s husband.
- The circuit court denied Harlow’s 2-619.1 motion as to comity, later struck and dismissed his answer with prejudice on res judicata grounds, enrolled the Thai judgment as an Illinois judgment, and certified no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal.
- On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed: (1) the Thai judgment was not contrary to Illinois public policy and (2) res judicata applied because Harlow had an opportunity to litigate in Thailand and his defenses had been or could have been presented there.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wipaporn) | Defendant's Argument (Harlow) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Thai paternity/support judgment is entitled to comity in Illinois or is contrary to Illinois public policy | Comity appropriate; Thai judgment final and should be recognized | Section 3(b) of the Parentage Act bars treating a semen donor for a woman who is not his wife as the natural father, so comity should be denied | Denied: Thai judgment not contrary to Illinois public policy; Parentage Act governs narrow husband-wife/donor scenario and does not immunize Harlow given facts (consent, wedding ritual, conduct) |
| Whether Harlow may relitigate defenses (fraud, lack of full and fair hearing) in Illinois despite the Thai judgment | Thai judgment precludes relitigation; comity and finality should be given effect | Wipaporn allegedly concealed facts (cohabitation with another man) and obtained judgment by fraud; Harlow lacked full opportunity to present defenses in Thailand | Denied: Res judicata bars relitigation; Harlow had counsel, presented defenses (and appellate process ran); no adequate showing of fraud or deprivation of full and fair hearing |
| Whether enrolling the Thai judgment was premature because Harlow had appealed the Thai judgment when Illinois proceedings began | Wipaporn emphasized eventual finality and later Thai certificate of finality | Harlow argued appeal rendered foreign judgment non-final and unenforceable | Moot/Resolved: Thai court later issued certificate of finality; comity enrollment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Parentage of M.J., 203 Ill. 2d 526 (2003) (directs assisted-reproduction disputes be decided on case-specific facts and stresses children’s right to support)
- Chicago Flood Litigation, 176 Ill. 2d 179 (1997) (standard for ruling on motions to dismiss under sections 2-615 and 2-619)
- In re Marriage of Kohl, 334 Ill. App. 3d 867 (2002) (definition and deference standard for comity decisions)
- La Salle National Bank v. City of Chicago, 3 Ill. 2d 375 (1954) (permitting judicial notice of public records to aid disposition)