Jarke v. Mondry
2011 IL App (4th) 110150
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- This case involves a dispute over inheritance rights among siblings of Howard Schaffenacker.
- Brandy Mondry filed a motion for determination of heirship and sought DNA testing under Supreme Court Rule 215 to determine if Anthony Schaffer is Howard’s biological son.
- The trial court ordered Anthony and Michele Jarke to submit DNA samples, after they had refused, and held them in contempt with $100 penalties each.
- Brandy’s motion relied on affidavits and hearsay to challenge Anthony’s paternity, while Michele and Anthony argued the presumption of legitimacy and lack of credible evidence to rebut it.
- The Illinois Appellate Court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred in ordering DNA testing and applying an insufficient standard for “good cause.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 215 allowed DNA testing here | Court should not order testing; reliance on presumption of legitimacy | Testing is permissible to resolve hierarchy of heirs | Order reversed; Rule 215 misuse |
| Whether the Parentage Act applies given Brandy lacks standing | Brandy lacks standing to challenge legitimacy under the Act | Act can apply when parentage is at issue | Act does not authorize Brandy to challenge sibling’s legitimacy; not applicable |
| Whether the trial court used an appropriate standard for good cause under Rule 215 | Court used a liberal, discovery-stage standard not requiring persuasive evidence | Court has discretion to determine good cause with available evidence | Court erred by applying an overly liberal standard; must require credible evidence |
| Whether the evidence supported ordering testing | Evidence sufficient to show non-paternity | Evidence inadequate; hearsay affidavits insufficient | Evidence insufficient to justify ordering DNA testing; reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- J.S.A. v. M.H., 384 Ill. App. 3d 998 (2008) (Rule 215 testing used in some paternity inquiries)
- Fosse v. Pensabene, 362 Ill. App. 3d 172 (2005) (Evidentiary autopsy-like considerations for autopsy/DNA orders)
- Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 111 (1989) (Presumption of legitimacy and hereditary rights evolved with genetic testing)
- Western States Ins. Co. v. O’Hara, 357 Ill. App. 3d 509 (2005) (Discovery orders may be reviewed on appeal via contempt orders)