In re Paternity of an Unknown Minor
2011 IL App (1st) 102445
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Botello gave birth to a son and signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity with Roman; Sandoval filed a verified paternity petition seeking DNA testing; the trial court ordered Botello and the child to undergo testing; Botello refused, arguing the acknowledgment conferred conclusive paternity on Roman and deprived the court of jurisdiction; the issue centers on interplay between sections 5 and 7 of the Illinois Parentage Act and the court’s authority to order testing.
- The birth certificate listed Roman as the father; the petition alleged paternity by Sandoval despite the acknowledgment; the court proceeded under sections 7(a) and 11(a) to order DNA testing; Botello sought to prevent testing based on the alleged conclusive effect of the acknowledgment; the appellate court held that section 7(a) allows action to determine paternity regardless of presumption.
- The appellate court ultimately held that Sandoval had standing to pursue a paternity claim and that the court had authority to order DNA testing; Botello’s noncompliance was willful contempt; the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion; if Botello complies with testing on remand, she may purge contempt.
- The court rejected Botello’s interpretation of “conclusive” in section 5 as overbroad and determined that section 7(a) permits an action to establish paternity regardless of a presumption under section 5; testing can be ordered to determine biological paternity; section 7(b) provides limited grounds to challenge or disestablish paternity, but does not bar actions under section 7(a).
- Thus, the decision affirms the circuit court and remands for testing consistent with the opinion; contempt is purged by compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does section 7(a) permit a paternity action regardless of a section 5 presumption? | Sandoval relies on 7(a) to seek testing despite any presumption. | Botello argues 5 conclusive effect bars new actions. | Yes; 7(a) allows the action regardless of 5 presumption. |
| Can a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity be treated as conclusive to bar later paternity testing? | Sandoval shows testing can establish non-Roman paternity. | Botello contends conclusive acknowledgment precludes further action. | No; conclusive relevance limited to scope of 5, not to bar 7(a) actions. |
| May the court order DNA testing where paternity is contested after an acknowledgment? | Testing is authorized under 11(a) when a petition is filed. | Noncompliance should be excused under the acknowledgment argument. | Yes; court has authority to order testing. |
| Is Botello in contempt for refusing DNA testing? | Refusal constitutes willful disregard of court order. | No specific exception noted other than acknowledgment significance. | Contempt affirmed; remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- John M., 212 Ill. 2d 253 (Ill. 2004) (parentage act used to uphold testing and standing principles)
- J.S.A. v. M.H., 343 Ill. App. 3d 217 (Ill. App. 2003) (standing to challenge paternity; preservation of §7(a) rights)
- People ex rel. Department of Public Aid v. Smith, 212 Ill. 2d 389 (Ill. 2004) (distinguishes conclusive vs. rebuttable presumptions in 5(b))
- In re Parentage of G.E.M., 382 Ill. App. 3d 1102 (Ill. App. 2008) (presumed fathers’ standing and enforcement of testing)
- Miselis v. Health & Hospitals Governing Comm’n, 44 Ill. App. 3d 958 (Ill. App. 1976) (contempt and testing framework referenced)