McCormick v. Robertson
15 N.E.3d 968
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- McCormick petitioned Illinois circuit court January 2010 to establish paternity and custody for L.M.
- February 2010: circuit court issued judgment of parentage, custody, adopting joint parenting agreement.
- November–December 2013: multiple motions; Illinois court later voided February 2010 order for lack of UCCJEA jurisdiction.
- March 12, 2014: circuit court voided February 2010 order and dismissed petition with prejudice.
- Appellate court vacated the March 2014 order, holding the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction as a justiciable matter under Article VI, §9 of the Illinois Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction over February 2010 order | McCormick argues court had constitutional jurisdiction | Robertson argues UCCJEA limited jurisdiction | Court had subject-matter jurisdiction; order not voidable for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether UCCJEA limits or nullifies constitutionally derived jurisdiction | Constitution provides inherent jurisdiction irrespective of UCCJEA | UCCJEA limits when Illinois may exercise custody jurisdiction | UCCJEA cannot deprive constitutionally derived jurisdiction; order not void for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the February 2010 order could be voided as void ab initio under UCCJEA | Order should stand; not void ab initio | Order void due to lack of jurisdiction | Order not void ab initio; subject-matter jurisdiction existed |
| Whether estoppel or removal issues are properly before the court | Estoppel/removal arguments relevant | Not properly before the court given jurisdiction finding | Not decided; vacated issue since jurisdiction affirmed |
| What is the ultimate source of circuit court subject-matter jurisdiction in custody matters | Constitutional origination governs | Statutory framework controls jurisdiction | Constitution provides ultimate source; UCCJEA framework is procedural, not exclusive |
Key Cases Cited
- Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (Ill. 2002) (circuit court jurisdiction grounded in the constitution; statutes cannot strip constitutional power)
- Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher, 197 Ill. 2d 514 (Ill. 2001) (amendments expanded circuit court jurisdiction; voidable rather than void orders for certain errors)
- M.W., 232 Ill. 2d 408 (Ill. 2009) (not every error voids jurisdiction; some errors yield voidable orders)
- Siegel v. Siegel, 84 Ill. 2d 212 (Ill. 1981) (section 601 vs. constitutional basis for jurisdiction; clarifies limits on statutory language)
- In re Luis R., 239 Ill. 2d 295 (Ill. 2010) (legislative limits do not defeat constitutionally derived jurisdiction; focus on justiciable matter)
- In re D.S., 217 Ill. 2d 306 (Ill. 2005) (home state concept; analysis of jurisdiction via substantial contacts)
- Diaz, In re Marriage of Diaz, 363 Ill. App. 3d 1091 (Ill. App. 2006) (discusses home state vs. significant contacts under UCCJEA)
- In re Marriage of Mitchell, 181 Ill. 2d 169 (Ill. 1998) (voidable vs. void orders when jurisdiction is acquired)