In re Parentage of W.J.B.
68 N.E.3d 977
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- William B. (petitioner) filed a parentage petition in Du Page County, Illinois to establish paternity of W.J.B., born April 25, 2011; William is an Illinois resident.
- Rachel H. (respondent) is a North Carolina resident; after outpatient surgery in late Sept. 2013 she arranged for the child to stay with the paternal grandparents in Illinois beginning Oct. 5, 2013 to allow her to recover.
- The child remained with Illinois grandparents from Oct. 5, 2013 until Rachel picked him up on March 15, 2014; Rachel testified the placement was intended as a temporary visit and that she had a vehicle and opportunity to retrieve the child earlier.
- Petitioner filed the parentage petition on Feb. 28, 2014 and served Rachel on March 13, 2014; petitioner sought emergency relief and a temporary injunction to prevent removal of the child from Illinois.
- Rachel moved to dismiss under section 2-619.1 for lack of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court denied dismissal, found Rachel’s testimony not credible, concluded the child resided in Illinois "as a result of the acts or directives" of Rachel under section 201(a)(5) of the Illinois UIFSA, and entered a preliminary injunction.
- Rachel obtained leave to appeal under Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(5); the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction and preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (William) | Defendant's Argument (Rachel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois court had personal jurisdiction over a nonresident respondent under 750 ILCS 22/201(a)(5) (child "resides in this State as a result of the acts or directives of the individual"). | William argued Rachel directed/authorized the child’s placement in Illinois (contacted petitioner, arranged grandparents’ care, did not retrieve child) so section 201(a)(5) applies. | Rachel argued the child’s presence was a temporary visit/acquiescence while she recovered from surgery; she did not intend the child to reside in Illinois and took no affirmative steps to transfer custody. | Court held the evidence supported that Rachel’s acts/directives caused the child to reside in Illinois; jurisdiction under §201(a)(5) was proper. |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction over Rachel offends federal due process (minimum contacts/purposeful availment). | William argued Rachel’s acts in sending the child and then failing to retrieve him for 5½ months made it foreseeable she could be haled into court in Illinois. | Rachel relied on Kulko (mere acquiescence insufficient) and argued lack of purposeful availment and due process. | Court held due process satisfied because the child’s continuous presence in Illinois resulted from Rachel’s acts/directives (not mere acquiescence); Kulko distinguished. |
| Appropriate standard of appellate review for jurisdictional findings after evidentiary hearing. | William urged deference to trial court factual findings. | Rachel contended the standard should be "clearly erroneous." | Court adopted manifest-weight-of-the-evidence review for factual findings and de novo for legal conclusions (following Madison Miracle and Samour guidance). |
| Whether preliminary injunction preventing removal of the child was proper (ancillary). | William sought injunction to prevent removal while parentage case proceeded. | Rachel did not contest injunction on the merits in the hearing to avoid waiving jurisdictional challenge. | Trial court entered preliminary injunction; appellate court affirmed jurisdictional basis which supported injunction (injunction left undisturbed). |
Key Cases Cited
- Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1978) (mere acquiescence by custodial parent to child's change of residence does not by itself confer jurisdiction)
- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1989) (parental intent relevant in determining child’s domicile)
- Samour, Inc. v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill. 2d 530 (Ill. 2007) (in civil cases, legal questions reviewed de novo and factual questions under manifest weight standard)
- Best v. Best, 223 Ill. 2d 342 (Ill. 2006) (deference to trial court as factfinder; credibility and weight of evidence)
- McNally v. Morrison, 408 Ill. App. 3d 248 (Ill. App. Ct.) (plaintiff bears burden to make prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction)