In re Parentage of D.S. , 2021 IL App (1st) 192257 ( 2021 )

Digitally signed
by Reporter of
Decisions
Reason: I attest
Illinois Official Reports to the accuracy
and integrity of
this document
Appellate Court Date: 2022.11.01
09:26:47 -05'00'
In re Parentage of D.S., 2021 IL App (1st) 192257Appellate Court In re PARENTAGE OF D.S., a Minor (Colton S., Petitioner-
Caption Appellant, v. Aura C.-K., Respondent-Appellee).
District & No. First District, Second Division
No. 1-19-2257
Filed April 27, 2021
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 2018-D-8002; the
Review Hon. Edward A. Arce, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Affirmed.
Counsel on Lou Karnezis, of Karnezis Law Group LLC, of Park Ridge, for
Appeal appellant.
No brief filed for appellee.
Panel JUSTICE COBBS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Lavin and Pucinski concurred in the judgment and the
opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Petitioner-Appellant, Colton S., filed a petition seeking a declaration of parentage and
allocation of parental responsibilities for D.S., the daughter of respondent-appellee, Aura C.-
K. Respondent moved to strike the petition for parentage pursuant to section 622 of the Illinois
Parentage Act of 2015 (Parentage Act) (750 ILCS 46/622 (West 2018)), which prohibits the
allocation of parental responsibilities to men who father through sexual assault or abuse or
otherwise nonconsensual sexual penetration. The court granted respondent’s motion and
dismissed petitioner’s petition with prejudice. Petitioner now appeals, arguing that dismissal
was improper because the court failed to address the effect of consent under section 622(b).
For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 Respondent was born on April 16, 2001. She has known petitioner since December 2016
and, at some point, had a sexual relationship with him. On December 12, 2017, at the age of
16, respondent gave birth to D.S. in Cook County.
¶4 On September 12, 2018, pursuant to section 601 of the Parentage Act, petitioner filed a
petition to establish parentage and for allocation of parental responsibilities for D.S. In his
petition, he alleged that D.S. currently resides with him, that respondent is unfit, and that it is
in D.S.’s best interest for petitioner to be adjudicated her father and allocated sole parental and
decision-making responsibilities.
¶5 On November 13, 2018, respondent filed an answer, pro se, denying that she is unfit to
exercise parental responsibilities. Respondent also stated that petitioner “is an unfit parent”
and that she had requested a paternity test because she did not believe that petitioner was D.S.’s
father.
¶6 On December 24, 2018, respondent filed an “Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order Injunctive and Other Relief and an Immediate Surrender of the Child.” In
the motion, respondent stated that while she was living at her great-grandmother’s home,
“sometime in September/October 2018 D.S. began to live with [petitioner’s] parents and [she]
would visit and enjoy parenting time on a daily basis.” However, after filing the instant petition,
petitioner and his parents began to restrict respondent’s ability to see D.S. Respondent argued
that she did not consent to petitioner’s parenting time and that he was in violation of section
622 of the Parentage Act. As such, respondent requested the court order the immediate return
of D.S. to her care. Attached to her emergency motion was an affidavit in which she averred
that she was 15 years old, and petitioner was 18 years old when they initiated their sexual
relationship. She further averred that petitioner was emotionally and physically abusive
throughout their relationship. The court denied the motion, finding that an emergency did not
exist.
¶7 At some point, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) became involved,
and on December 28, 2018, DCFS issued a “safety plan,” naming petitioner the custodial
parent.
¶8 On January 7, 2019, respondent filed an “Affirmative Petition and/or Motion to Strike
Petitioner’s Petition to Establish Parentage and for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities”
pursuant to section 622(f) of the Parentage Act. Again, respondent argued that allocation of
-2-
parental responsibilities to petitioner was prohibited under section 622 because conception of
D.S. was the result of nonconsensual sexual intercourse and she did not consent to petitioner’s
parenting time.
¶9 On February 6, 2019, petitioner filed a response wherein he confirmed that he was 19 years
old, and respondent was 16 years old when D.S. was born. Subsequently, on February 13,
2019, petitioner filed a memorandum of law in response to respondent’s motion to strike. In
the memorandum, petitioner argued that the issue before the court was “whether [respondent]
consented to the exercise of [p]etitioner’s parental rights.” In that regard, he asserted that
respondent and her family had consented to petitioner’s parenting time and parental
responsibilities since D.S. was born and that she is only now objecting to his parenting.
Petitioner further argued that it would be in the best interest of D.S. to allow him parental
responsibilities.
¶ 10 Attached to the memorandum was the DCFS “safety plan” dated December 28, 2018. The
document identified the “safety threat” as a caregiver or member of the household, namely
respondent, “whose behavior is violent and out of control.” The document stated that
respondent was required to attend anger management and parenting classes and would only be
permitted supervised visits with D.S. at petitioner’s parents’ house. Additionally, two police
reports were also attached to the memorandum as exhibits. In the first, respondent reported an
online threat made against her grandmother, and in the second, respondent had been reported
to police as missing by her grandmother, but she returned home stating that she had just been
lost in Chicago.
¶ 11 A hearing was held, at which counsel for respondent contextualized the issue before the
circuit court as one of standing. Prior to receiving evidence, the court commented that it would
be a “tight hearing” on the issue of standing and not “fitness.” The following testimony was
presented.
¶ 12 Petitioner testified that he was born on June 1, 1998, and has one child, D.S., with
respondent. He confirmed that he is listed on D.S.’s birth certificate as the father. He stated
that he met respondent in December 2016.
¶ 13 Respondent testified that petitioner is the father of her child and that she was 15 years old
when D.S. was conceived. Respondent never complained to the police that petitioner had
sexual intercourse with her against her will. She also testified that petitioner was mentally,
physically, and verbally abusive toward her but she never called the police to complain about
petitioner’s abuse because she was afraid. Finally, respondent testified that she did not consent
either to petitioner, or to anyone in his family, parenting her child.
¶ 14 Amy S., petitioner’s mother, testified that she met with representatives from DCFS while
respondent was present and, on those occasions, respondent did not complain that the sexual
intercourse between her and petitioner was nonconsensual. She further testified that respondent
never complained to her that petitioner was abusive.
¶ 15 After the hearing, respondent filed a memorandum of law in support of her motion to
dismiss, in which she argued that petitioner’s reading of the Parentage Act would negate its
obvious intent to protect victims from their assailants and would permit rapists to remain
involved with their victims and resulting children through coercion or charm. She also argued
that a “best interest of the child” analysis is simply not contemplated by section 622. Petitioner
filed a reply, reasserting his argument that respondent consented to petitioner’s parenting of
-3-
D.S. “long ago” and that the Act does not support a reading that would allow respondent to
simply revoke her consent whenever it is convenient for her.
¶ 16 On October 8, 2019, the circuit court dismissed the petition with prejudice. In doing so, the
court concluded that respondent has established by “clear and convincing evidence” that
petitioner had “committed an act of non-consensual sexual penetration for his conduct in
fathering that child” due to respondent’s age, which rendered her “incapable of giving consent
to an act of sexual penetration.”
¶ 17 This appeal followed.
¶ 18 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 19 As an initial matter, we note that respondent has failed to file a brief in this appeal.
Generally, we will not act as an advocate for an appellee who fails to file a brief or search the
record for the purpose of sustaining the court’s judgment. First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v.
Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976). However, failure to file a brief does
not require an automatic reversal, and the appellant continues to bear the burden of establishing
error. Id. at 131-32. “When the record is simple, and the claimed errors are such that this court
can easily decide them on the merits without the aid of an appellee’s brief, this court should
decide the appeal on its merits.” Plooy v. Paryani, 275 Ill. App. 3d 1074, 1088 (1995). We find
that the record and the issues involved herein are straightforward and clear enough that the
appeal should be decided on its merits.
¶ 20 A. Standard of Review
¶ 21 The issue before us is whether the circuit court erred in dismissing with prejudice the
petition to establish parentage and allocate parental responsibility or parental time. Before
turning to the merits of petitioner’s arguments, we must first determine under which section of
the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) the dismissal should be analyzed. See 735 ILCS 5/2-615,
2-619 (West 2018). The circuit court did not identify which section of the Code served as the
basis for dismissal, and other than section 622(f) of the Parentage Act, respondent cites no
other statutory provision as the basis for which the petition should be stricken. Throughout his
brief, petitioner argues, in the main, that dismissal under section 2-615 was not appropriate as
there are facts that may be proven, which would defeat dismissal. He maintains, however, that
dismissal under either section 2-615 or 2-619 of the Code was improper. Thus, reversal is
warranted.
¶ 22 Section 2-615 provides that a pleading or portion thereof may be stricken because it is
substantially insufficient in law. Id. § 2-615. That is, a motion filed under section 2-615 tests
the legal sufficiency of the pleading. Cohen v. McDonald’s Corp., 347 Ill. App. 3d 627, 632
(2004). In such a case, the court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences
to be drawn from those facts and determines whether the allegations are sufficient to state a
cause upon which relief may be granted. Id.¶ 23 On the other hand, a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619 admits the legal
sufficiency of the pleading and raises defects, defenses, or other affirmative matters that act to
defeat the claim. Id. Thus, the issue is whether, after reviewing the pleadings, depositions, and
affidavits, there is a genuine issue of material fact that precludes dismissal, or whether
dismissal is proper as a matter of law. Id.-4-
¶ 24 In evaluating a circuit court’s dismissal, we look at the substance of the motion to dismiss,
not its label. See Winters v. Wangler, 386 Ill. App. 3d 788, 793 (2008). Respondent stated in
her petition or motion to strike that it was filed pursuant to section 622(f) of the Parentage Act.
That subsection permits the mother (or guardian of the mother) to file a petition as “an
affirmative defense in any proceeding filed by the person described in subsection (a) of this
Section regarding the child.” 750 ILCS 46/622(f) (West 2018). Section 2-619(a)(9) permits
dismissal where “the claim asserted against defendant is barred by other affirmative matter
avoiding the legal effect of or defeating the claim.” 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2018).
Because section 622 was intended as an affirmative defense in a proceeding that has already
been instituted, we construe respondent’s filing as a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-
619 of the Code, which, as stated, admits the legal sufficiency of the pleading but raises an
affirmative defense to defeat the claim.
¶ 25 “The purpose of a section 2-619 motion to dismiss is to dispose of issues of law and easily
proved issues of fact at the outset of litigation.” Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d
359, 367 (2003). “An ‘affirmative matter’ in this instance is something in the nature of a
defense that negates the cause of action completely or refutes crucial conclusions of law or
conclusions of material fact contained in or inferred from the complaint.” Anderson v. Chicago
Transit Authority, 2019 IL App (1st) 181564, ¶ 21. It is the moving party’s burden to establish
the affirmative matter defeating the nonmoving party’s claim. Pruitt v. Pruitt, 2013 IL App
(1st) 130032, ¶ 14. In ruling on a section 2-619 motion, all pleadings and supporting documents
must be construed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the motion should be
granted where no material facts are in dispute and the defendant is entitled to dismissal as a
matter of law. Kheirkhahvash v. Baniassadi, 407 Ill. App. 3d 171, 176 (2011). However, “[i]f
the affidavits present disputed facts, the parties must be afforded the opportunity to have an
evidentiary hearing.” A.F.P. Enterprises, Inc. v. Crescent Pork, Inc., 243 Ill. App. 3d 905, 913
(1993).
¶ 26 In the present case, the court held an evidentiary hearing and thus we “ ‘must review not
only the law but also the facts, and may reverse the trial court order if it is incorrect in law or
against the manifest weight of the evidence.’ ” Hernandez v. New Rogers Pontiac, Inc., 332
Ill. App. 3d 461, 464 (2002) (quoting Kirby v. Jarrett, 190 Ill. App. 3d 8, 13 (1989)). A factual
finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly
evident or the finding itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.
Offord v. Fitness International, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 150879, ¶ 16. Because this appeal
involves interpretation of the Parentage Act, which is an issue of law, our review is de novo.
Unzicker v. Kraft Food Ingredients Corp., 203 Ill. 2d 64, 74 (2002). Accordingly, we review
whether the trial court’s findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence while
reviewing the questions of law de novo (Offord, 2015 IL App (1st) 150879, ¶ 15), and we may
affirm the court’s dismissal based on any grounds supported by the record (King v. City of
Chicago, 324 Ill. App. 3d 856, 859 (2001)).
¶ 27 B. Parentage Act
¶ 28 Section 622 of the Parentage Act, enacted in 2016, is titled “Allocation of parental
responsibilities or parenting time prohibited to men who father through sexual assault or sexual
abuse” and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
-5-
“(a) This Section applies to a person who has been found to be the father of a child
under this Act and who:
(1) has been convicted of or who has pled guilty or nolo contendere to a
violation of Section 11-1.20 (criminal sexual assault), Section 11-1.30 (aggravated
criminal sexual assault), Section 11-1.40 (predatory criminal sexual assault of a
child), Section 11-1.50 (criminal sexual abuse), Section 11-1.60 (aggravated
criminal sexual abuse), Section 11-11 (sexual relations within families), Section
12-13 (criminal sexual assault), Section 12-14 (aggravated criminal sexual assault),
Section 12-14.1 (predatory criminal sexual assault of a child), Section 12-15
(criminal sexual abuse), or Section 12-16 (aggravated criminal sexual abuse) of the
Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012, or a similar statute in another
jurisdiction, for his conduct in fathering that child; or
(2) at a fact-finding hearing, is found by clear and convincing evidence to have
committed an act of non-consensual sexual penetration for his conduct in fathering
that child.
(b) A person described in subsection (a) shall not be entitled to an allocation of any
parental responsibilities or parenting time with that child without the consent of the
child’s mother or guardian. If the person described in subsection (a) is also the guardian
of the child, he does not have the authority to consent to parenting time or the allocation
of parental responsibilities under this Section. If the mother of the child is a minor, and
the person described in subsection (a) is also the father or guardian of the mother, then
he does not have the authority to consent to the allocation of parental responsibilities
or parenting time.
***
(f) A petition under this Section may be filed by the child’s mother or guardian
either as an affirmative petition in circuit court or as an affirmative defense in any
proceeding filed by the person described in subsection (a) of this Section regarding the
child.” 750 ILCS 46/622 (West 2018). 1
¶ 29 “The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s
true intent.” Unzicker, 203 Ill. 2d at 75. Intent should be determined more from consideration
of the reason and necessity, objects, and purposes of the law than from its language. Mashal v.
City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112341, ¶ 21. The court considers statutory language in light of the
statute’s purposes and evils the law was designed to remedy. Id. Details of the statute should
be construed in conformity with its dominant purpose. Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Ross, 28 Ill.
App. 3d 165, 172 (1975). The court’s construction should be in such a manner as will
accomplish those objects sought by their enactments. In re Petition of K.M., 274 Ill. App. 3d
189, 195 (1995). If the plain language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, we will give that
meaning effect without resort to other aids of statutory construction. Palm v. Holocker, 2018
1
“ ‘Parental responsibilities’ ” is defined in section 600(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution
of Marriage Act as “both parenting time and significant decision-making responsibilities with respect
to a child.” 750 ILCS 5/600(d) (West 2018). “ ‘Parenting time’ ” is defined in section 600(e) of the
Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act as “the time during which a parent is responsible for
exercising caretaking functions and non-significant decision-making responsibilities with respect to the
child.” Id. § 600(e).
-6-
IL 123152, ¶ 21. The court, of course, must view the statute as a whole, construing the words
and phrases in light of the other relevant statutory provisions. State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Family
Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754, ¶ 35. Finally, we may not depart from a statute’s plain
language by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions the legislature did not express.
In re Hernandez, 2020 IL 124661, ¶ 18.
¶ 30 Because the parties were never married, the Parentage Act (750 ILCS 46/101 et seq. (West
2018)) governs the particular proceedings in this case. In enacting the Parentage Act, the
General Assembly established a “statutory mechanism that serves to legally establish parent
and child relationships in Illinois.” In re Estate of Poole, 207 Ill. 2d 393, 404 (2003). 2 The
purpose of the Parentage Act is to further the public policy of Illinois to “recognize[ ] the right
of every child to the physical, mental, emotional, and financial support of his or her parents.”
750 ILCS 46/102 (West 2018); J.S.A. v. M.H., 224 Ill. 2d 182, 198 (2007).
¶ 31 Section 622(a) of the Parentage Act identifies the population of men who are prohibited
from allocation of parental responsibilities or parenting time. Subsection (a)(1) specifically
identifies men who were either convicted or pled guilty to a criminal sexual offense. 750 ILCS
46/622(a)(1) (West 2018). Subsection (a)(2) specifically identifies men who fathered children
resulting from nonconsensual sexual penetration, thereby including perpetrators of sexual
abuse or sexual assault, but who have not been convicted. Under section 622, a fact-finding
hearing is mandated for purposes of determining paternity for men who fit within the definition
of subsection (a)(2). Id. § 622(a)(2). Significantly, subsection (b), which we characterize as
one of the section’s several consent provisions, identifies those individuals, generally the
mother, who may consent, by means of an affirmative petition, to an offender father’s parental
responsibilities and parenting time. 3 Id. § 622(b). The consent provisions are without
limitation, conditions, or exceptions. Subsection (f) sets out the manner in which the mother
may either give or object to consent in any proceeding filed by persons identified in subsection
(a). Overall, section 622 is a legislative acknowledgment that a mother’s will was either
overborn, such that no consent was given, or that due to the age of minority, no consent could
be given for the sexual conduct that produced a child. The practical effect of the section is to
prohibit persons described in section (a) from the rights and enjoyment of parenting unless
consented to by the mother. In our view, the section promotes Illinois’s strong public policy
against victimized women suffering revictimization that would result from an offender father
engaging in parental privilege with the victim mother.
¶ 32 Petitioner does not dispute the circuit court’s finding that there is clear and convincing
evidence that petitioner committed an act of nonconsensual sexual penetration, which resulted
in D.S.’s conception. We agree with the finding as well, as it is supported by the evidence
presented at the hearing. “[T]he prescribed age of consent in Illinois is 17 ***.” People v.
2
The Parentage Act of 1984 was repealed in its entirety (see Pub. Act 99-85, § 977 (eff. Jan. 1,
2016)) and replaced by the Parentage Act of 2015 (see Pub. Act 99-85, § 101 (eff. Jan. 1, 2016) (adding
750 ILCS 46/101 et seq.)). Section 6-5 in the prior act was retained as section 622 in the current act.
3
Under subsection (c), the mother is given authority to “decline support and maintenance
obligations from the father.” 750 ILCS 46/622(c) (West 2018). Under subsection (d), the mother is
given authority to consent to the father having “inheritance or other rights,” otherwise he is not entitled
to any. Id. § 622(d). And finally, under subsection (e), the mother is given authority to consent to
relatives of the father petitioning for parental responsibilities or parenting time. Id. § 622(e).
-7-
Lloyd, 2013 IL 113510, ¶ 30; see also 720 ILCS 5/11-1.50(c) (West 2018) (the offense of
criminal sexual abuse occurs where the victim is “at least 13 years of age but under 17 years
of age” and the person who committed the act of sexual penetration is “less than 5 years older
than the victim”). Regardless of respondent’s testimony that petitioner “forced” her to have
sex with him and that he was abusive toward her throughout their relationship, a lack of consent
is presumed by law due to respondent’s age. Thus, under subsection (a)(2), petitioner is
prohibited from parenting time with the child. The only contested issue in this case is whether
the mother’s alleged prior consent to petitioner’s parenting time, once given, may be
withdrawn.
¶ 33 Both petitioner and respondent argued the issue of consent to parental responsibilities and
parenting time in their memoranda related to the evidentiary hearing. The circuit court,
however, limited the fact-finding hearing to the issue of whether subsection (a) was applicable
to petitioner. The court’s order following the hearing did not address consent to parental
responsibilities whatsoever. We note the circuit court’s mention of “consent” in its order. Clear
from the language, however, is that the court’s ruling was with regard to the issue of consent
to sexual penetration, as opposed to consent to parenting.
¶ 34 We believe that the circuit court’s ruling, which made no factual findings on the issue of
consent, was consistent with the objects of the Parentage Act, protection of the mother’s right
to withhold consent without fear of coercion by the offender father. Other than subsection
(a)(2)’s provision for a hearing to determine whether conception resulted from nonconsensual
sexual penetration, section 622 mandates no judicial determination of any kind on any issue
covered in this provision.
¶ 35 Petitioner argues in his brief that respondent’s prior consent to petitioner’s parenting, which
he claims is evidenced by a variety of actions taken prior to the instant action, should foreclose
respondent from asserting her rights to decide whether petitioner is permitted to parent the
child. Essentially, he argues that the statute should be construed as requiring a judicial
determination of whether the mother has previously consented at any point to the father’s
parenting of the child. He further argues that the DCFS safety plan lends credence to his
assertion that respondent had previously consented to his parenting privileges.
¶ 36 We note language in the circuit court’s order that there was “no evidence in the record that
DCFS conducted a fact-finding hearing prior to placing the child with the [p]etitioner.”
Regardless, although nothing in section 622 of the Parentage Act bars a mother from giving
consent without the filing of a petition, neither does anything in the Parentage Act bind her to
a prior given consent. To ensure against a victim mother’s unwelcome shared parenting with
an offender father, or potential coerced consent, the Parentage Act provides a mechanism by
which she may statutorily express her intent to either allow or to bar the same. See 750 ILCS
46/622(f) (West 2018). No affirmative petition appears in the record. Not only is petitioner’s
interpretation not supported by the plain language of the statute, but it is also contrary to the
legislature’s intent to vest in the mother, who conceived as a result of conduct defined in
subsections (a)(1) or (a)(2), complete autonomy to decide the issue of parenting rights. Further,
to read the statute as petitioner urges creates the opportunity for an offender father, who might
have obtained the mother’s consent as a result of coercion, to do exactly that which the
Parentage Act seeks to protect against.
¶ 37 Petitioner additionally argues that the court’s dismissal of his petition is not only contrary
to the plain language of the statute, the policy of our state, but also the best interest of the minor
-8-
child, “the guidepost for all actions involving minor children, and the very purpose of the Act.”
To be clear, petitioner brought this action under the Parentage Act. Petitioner misses the point
of section 622. A determination of parentage does not automatically vest in the father parental
rights when fatherhood was the result of what the state has defined as illegal or criminal sexual
conduct. Absent a mother’s free and unfettered consent, fathers identified in section 622(a)(2)
of the Parentage Act shall not enjoy either parenting responsibilities or parenting time.
Subsection (f) provides the mechanism by which that consent, in the discretion of the mother,
may be permitted or barred.
¶ 38 Further, section 622 parentage proceedings are not proceedings like those under the
Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1 et seq. (West 2018)), the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS
405/1-1 et seq. (West 2018)), or the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750
ILCS 5/101 et seq. (West 2018)) in which custody determinations are guided by the overriding
principle of the best interest of the child. Notably, this matter was not joined with any other
permissible proceeding in which such determinations are required. See 750 ILCS 46/611(a)
(West 2018) (except as provided in subsection 611(b), a proceeding to adjudicate parentage
may be joined with another appropriate proceeding, such as for adoption or termination of
parental rights). Further, if under section 622, “in the best interest” were to present as an
overriding factor to consent, in cases where a mother is determined to be unfit, as is alleged
here, the offender father might be awarded parental privileges, despite his prior offending
conduct. Clearly, such a result would be in contravention of the Parentage Act. In any case,
had the legislature intended the mother’s consent under section 622 to be subject to a best
interest of the child analysis, nothing precluded it from saying so.
¶ 39 Petitioner points to no case which construes section 622(b) of the Act, and we are only
aware of one, Deaver v. Jordan, 2020 IL App (5th) 200084-U. 4 In Deaver, the circuit court
granted the father’s petition for parenting time. Id. ¶ 16. On appeal, the mother argued that the
court erroneously interpreted section 622 of the Parentage Act in determining that both she and
her adoptive mother had previously consented to the father having parenting time with the
child. Id. ¶ 22. A divided panel of the Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court’s
ruling, finding that the plain language of section 622(b) allows for allocation of parental
responsibilities where the minor mother consents, the evidence supported a conclusion that she
had consented, and the best interest of the child would be served by allocating parental
responsibilities to the father as he had already established a relationship with the child. Id. ¶ 29.
The court held that a showing of prior consent was sufficient to nullify the applicability of
section 622. Id. The court further stated: “The plain language of 622(b) does not require a
mother’s continued or ongoing consent for each exercise of parental responsibility or each
exercise of parenting time by the father.” Id. The dissent, however, came to the opposite
conclusion. The dissent took the position that after finding that the father fit within the
definition of section 622(a)(2), the court had no authority to enter an order of parental
responsibilities “unless the minor mother is in agreement,” which she was not in this case, as
evidenced by the contentious legal dispute. (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶¶ 38-39 (Barberis, J.,
4
This order was issued pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 (eff. Apr. 1, 2018) prior to
January 1, 2021. Therefore, the recent amendment to Rule 23(e)(1) is inapplicable as the Fifth District
did not intend for it to serve persuasive value. Even so, this court is not bound by even published rulings
from other districts, divisions, or panels. See O’Casek v. Children’s Home & Aid Society of Illinois,
229 Ill. 2d 421, 440 (2008).
-9-
dissenting). The dissent rejected the majority’s conclusion that the father was permitted
parental responsibilities based on the mother’s prior consent. Id.¶ 40 We believe that the dissent in Deaver reached the correct result. Here, respondent filed an
affirmative defense to the petition seeking parental responsibilities and parenting time. Even
assuming her prior consent, other than filing her affirmative defense to bar parenting time,
nothing more in the statute is contemplated and nothing more in the statute is required.
¶ 41 We are not unaware of the potential dangers to which petitioner alludes should a mother
be permitted to give and then withdraw consent. We trust that the legislature was also aware
of this possibility in enacting the statute. However, we believe that the parenting rights vested
exclusively in the mother strike the proper balance under the circumstances addressed by this
section of the Parentage Act. Further, as section 622(f) makes available the filing of an
affirmative petition, we believe that the likelihood of repeated withdrawals of consent is
diminished. We would also point out that it is no more likely that consent, once given, will be
withdrawn than it is that once given it would not be. In any case, given the objects of section
622, the possibility that a mother might change her mind is not reason either to graft on
exceptions or to ignore the plain language of the Parentage Act.
¶ 42 Additionally, the absence in section 622 of any procedural directives to the courts supports
a conclusion that the legislature did not intend a mother’s consent to be subject to complex and
a potentially protracted judicial determination. The legislature’s silence in this regard comports
with an interpretation that the mother’s consent is to be determined upon the filing of either an
affirmative petition or defense, as it would likely be a straightforward determination. We also
find it implausible that the legislature intended for the clause to operate on the basis of prior
consent. Notably, in the case of a mother, not yet of majority age, any alleged prior “consent”
would not be informed or knowing, as it is likely that she would lack knowledge of her legal
authority under this section to deny parental privileges to an offender father.
¶ 43 Finally, when viewing the plain language of the Parentage Act—a person qualifying under
subsection (a) shall not be allocated parental responsibilities without the consent of the
mother—the consent clause suggests a present tense. If the legislature had intended
nullification of the provision based on the mother’s prior consent, it would have used the past
tense. For example, the clause may have been worded instead as “unless the mother has
consented.” Because the clause is written in the present tense, it logically follows that consent
is to be determined based upon the mother’s filing of an affirmative petition—not by some
other means at some other time in the past.
¶ 44 We note as an aside that Illinois enacted section 622 around the time when there was a
nationwide effort to enact legislation allowing a parent to terminate the parental rights of a
person who fathered a child through rape. 5 This was in no small part due to Congress passing
5
Although several other states have statutes prohibiting a father whose child was conceived as a
result of sexual assault or nonconsensual sexual intercourse from enjoying parental privileges, none
appear identical to statute at issue. For instance, others may require express written consent from the
mother, require the court to conduct a best-interests analysis, or some combination of the two before
waiving application of the statute. Moreover, these statutes, just as ours, are relatively new and many
have not been subjected to judicial interpretation. See Anastasia Doherty, Choosing to Raise a Child
Conceived Through Rape: The Double-Injustice of Uneven State Protection, 39 Women’s Rts. L. Rep.
220, 314-56 (2018) (Tables 3 to 6).
- 10 -
the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act to incentivize state legislation with federal funding. See
34 U.S.C. § 21301 (2018). It was against this backdrop that Illinois, and several other states,
enacted laws to provide agency for a victim-mother who has chosen to raise a child, conceived
out of rape, and to prevent a revictimization or “a second injustice in finding no legal protection
against custody or visitation being awarded to a rapist parent.” Anastasia Doherty, Choosing
to Raise a Child Conceived Through Rape: The Double-Injustice of Uneven State Protection,
39 Women’s Rts. L. Rep. 220, 224 (2018).
¶ 45 Here, our review of the record demonstrates that respondent not only made clear in her
pleadings that she does not currently consent to an allocation of parental responsibility to
petitioner but, additionally, during the hearing on the issue of parentage, she also testified that
she does not consent to him or his family members parenting D.S. Although the circuit court
did not expressly rule on respondent’s affirmative defense to the petition, as our review is
de novo, we do so here and find that, pursuant to subsection (b), petitioner is prohibited from
parental responsibilities and parenting time. Petitioner’s references to respondent’s past
behavior, police reports, and the safety plan are irrelevant in these proceedings. The only issue
is consent, and respondent having presented an affirmative defense, no amendment of
petitioner’s petition could alter that result.
¶ 46 We hold that section 622(a)(2) is applicable to petitioner and, pursuant to section 622(f),
respondent has presented an affirmative matter cognizable under section 2-619 of the Code.
Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in dismissing the petition with prejudice.
¶ 47 That said, having reviewed the record, it does not escape our notice that the minor in this
case may require, for her well-being, intervention from the appropriate state agencies charged
with ensuring the physical and emotional well-being of minors. The absence of a stable home
environment can have long-lasting negative effects on every aspect of a child’s development.
Here, we hold only that respondent has not consented to petitioner’s request for parental
responsibilities and parenting time for D.S. Nothing in this court’s opinion, however, should
be read to impede the activities of any appropriate state agencies in the discharge of their duties
on behalf of the minor child. Neither, by our holding, are either of the parties foreclosed from
the filing of any future petitions.
¶ 48 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 49 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 50 Affirmed.
- 11 -