Woman in Long-Term Same-Sex Relationship Had Standing To Pursue Petition To Adjudicate Parentage of Two Minor Children
In In re Parentage of D.F., 2024 IL App (1st) 231784, the petitioner, a woman who was in a long-term relationship with another woman who gave birth to two children (birth mother) via artificial semination during their relationship, filed a petition to adjudicate parentage and for parenting time after the birth mother no longer permitted her to see the children. The petitioner had not formally adopted the children during the relationship, therefore the birth mother filed a motion to dismiss her petition for lack of standing. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and the appellate court reversed finding she had standing under a number of provisions of the Parentage Act of 2015, 750 ILCS 46/101, et seq. Section 602 of the Parentage Act, 750 ILCS 46/602, specifically addresses who has standing to bring a petition to adjudicate parentage and includes "a woman presumed or alleging herself to be the parent of the child." 2024 IL App (1st) 231784 at ¶25. The court noted that the statute grants standing broadly to a woman presumed or alleging herself to be the parent of a child and that the petitioner alleged she was involved in selecting a donor, the artificial insemination process, the pregnancy, and the raising of the children — all of which support her allegations she is a parent. Further, §602(g) grants standing to a person who has provided financial support to a child, and her petition set out numerous expenses she had paid for or contributed to for the children. Finally, she had standing under §602(k) as an intended parent as someone who entered into a reproductive technology arrangement as the term "arrangement" means "[a] measure taken or plan made in advance of some occurrence, sometimes for a legal purpose; an agreement or settlement of details made in anticipation." 2024 IL App (1st) 231784 at ¶36, quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). The petitioner alleged she had planned and asked multiple times to adopt the two children, but the birth mother refused despite agreeing for her to do so when she was pregnant. The court clarified that it was only opining on the issue of standing, not deciding the case on the merits, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Twenty-Seven-Year-Old Judgment Not Void for Lack of Jurisdiction
This appeal concerns a husband's petition to terminate monthly payments to his wife under a 1992 dissolution judgment. In re Marriage of Tronsrue, 2024 IL App (3d) 220125. The payments were the wife's portion of the husband's army disability retirement pay and veteran's administration disability benefits. The wife filed a motion to dismiss the husband's petition, which the trial court granted and the appellate court affirmed. The husband's argument on appeal was that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction back in 1992 to divide the husband's federal military benefits, making that portion of the judgment void and unenforceable. Whether an order is void is a question entirely of jurisdiction, and because the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction of the matter when the case was filed in 1990 and there was no facially unconstitutional statute at issue, the judgment was not void. There was a dissenting opinion that framed the issue as not whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction, but whether the trial court now had the power to enforce a judgment that contained a provision prohibited under federal law. Because federal law preempts conflicting state law, and because military disability benefits may not be considered marital assets by the court in a divorce, the dissenting opinion argued the trial court erred by enforcing a judgment that was contrary to federal law.
Filing Motion To Reconsider Does Not Toll Time To File Notice of Appeal
In In re Marriage of Likar, 2024 IL App (3d) 240103, a postjudgment appeal, the husband filed a motion to terminate maintenance based on the wife's alleged cohabitation. The wife moved to transfer the case from Will County to Grundy County, which the trial court denied. The wife filed a motion to reconsider, which was also denied. The wife then filed her notice to appeal claiming that the appellate court had jurisdiction under Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(4), which provides that a party may request leave to appeal from an order granting or denying a motion for a transfer of venue based on the assertion that the defendant is not a resident of the county in which the action was commenced, and no other legitimate basis for venue in that county has been offered by plaintiff. However, the wife did not file her notice of appeal within 30 days after the trial court denied her motion to transfer but instead waited until after the motion to reconsider had been ruled on. A motion to reconsider does not toll the timing for filing a petition for leave to appeal. Therefore, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Trial Court's Finding That Wife Was Not Cohabitating on Resident, Continuing, Conjugal Basis Reversed
The Third District reversed a trial court's ruling and held that the wife was not residing with her boyfriend on a resident, continuing, conjugal basis. In re Marriage of Miller, 2024 IL App (3d) 230098. After extensive testimony over a four-day hearing, in which the wife's boyfriend had testified that at the time of the hearing he and wife were no longer dating and he was in a relationship with another woman, the trial court determined that the wife was not cohabiting after evaluating each of the Herrin factors. The couple had been dating for three and a half years, spent large amounts of time together, celebrated holidays together, vacationed together, and spent a significant amount of time with each other's families, notably all of their respective children. There was no evidence that the couple had any intermingled financial dealings. However, the appellate court gave great weight to each of their involvement in the other's families and the fact that they attended each other's children's sporting events, talent shows, and were present on special occasions. Their children stayed overnight at each other's homes, and they traveled together for out-of-town sporting events. The court stated, "This willingness to involve both families suggests mutual commitment if not permanence." 2024 IL App (3d) 230098 at ¶65. Based on the totality of the circumstances, that while the relationship existed, it was a de facto marriage.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
