West-Howard v. The Department of Children and Family Services, 2013 IL App (4th) 120782

In March 2012, DCFS issued a final administrative decision removing West-Howard's grandchildren from her home.
DCFS served the decision on West-Howard's attorney by certified mail on March 9, 2012.
West-Howard filed a complaint for administrative review in April 2012 seeking judicial review of DCFS's decision.
DCFS moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing a 35-day filing deadline under the Administrative Review Law had lapsed.
The circuit court dismissed; on appeal, the court held service on the attorney satisfied notice requirements and the 35-day deadline was jurisdictional, so lack of timely filing barred review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the circuit court have jurisdiction to review the decision?	West-Howard contends lack of timely filing due to notice issues.	DCFS asserts timely filing required by 35 days; court lacks jurisdiction if not timely filed.	No jurisdiction if not timely filed within 35 days.
Is service on West-Howard's attorney sufficient under the Procedure Act?	Service should have been on West-Howard personally.	Service on the party's attorney constitutes proper service.	Yes; service on attorney suffices.
Does the 35-day filing deadline) determine jurisdiction even if the party claims no actual notice?	Lack of actual notice should toll or excuse timing.	No exception; the deadline is jurisdictional and strict.	Deadline remains jurisdictional; no tolling for lack of notice.

Massoud v. Board of Education of Valley View Community District No. 365, 97 Ill. App. 3d 65 (1981) (notice to an attorney of record constitutes valid service under the Procedure Act)
Collinsville Community Unit School District No. 10 v. Regional Board of School Trustees, 218 Ill. 2d 175 (2006) (35-day filing requirement is jurisdictional)
Fredman Brothers Furniture Co. v. Department of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202 (1985) (Administrative Review Law filing deadline is jurisdictional)