Sharpe v. Westmoreland, 2020 IL 124863

Sharpe and Westmoreland divorced in 2013 and shared joint parenting; A.S. resided with Sharpe.
Sharpe entered a civil union with Kris Fulkerson in November 2013; A.S. lived in their household.
Sharpe died on January 2, 2017; Westmoreland thereafter prevented A.S. from visiting or living with Fulkerson.
Fulkerson filed petitions seeking visitation and allocation of parental responsibilities as a stepparent; the circuit court allowed intervention and certified two legal questions under Ill. S. Ct. R. 308.
The appellate court answered both certified questions in the negative (civil-union partner not a "step-parent"); the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
The Supreme Court reversed: held a civil-union partner is a "step-parent" under the Dissolution Act and that applying the statute to civil-union partners does not unconstitutionally expand parental-rights protections; case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Westmoreland)	Defendant's Argument (Fulkerson)	Held
Whether a civil-union partner is a "step-parent" under the Dissolution Act and thus has standing to seek visitation and allocation of parental responsibilities	Civil-union partners are not spouses and therefore fall outside the Dissolution Act's definition of "step-parent"; Civil Union Act protections apply only between partners.	Civil Union Act makes civil-union partners equivalent to spouses for legal obligations/benefits, so a partner married to a parent fits the statute's "person married to a child's parent."	Yes. Civil-union partner qualifies as a "step-parent" under the Dissolution Act; certified questions answered affirmatively.
Whether recognizing a civil-union partner as a stepparent unconstitutionally infringes the natural parent's fundamental right to raise their child	Allowing standing would unconstitutionally expand who can petition for parenting time, infringing parental liberty.	No; legislature intentionally created civil unions equal to marriage, so applying the Dissolution Act does not expand scope beyond those eligible to marry.	No. Court held the legislative scheme does not unconstitutionally expand the Dissolution Act; parental-rights concerns do not invalidate the statutory application.

Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469 (1994) (statutory language controls; plain-meaning interpretation).
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in making child-rearing decisions).