In re Alice D
Key Takeaways
- 1 Merely asking a mother to identify possible fathers is insufficient to constitute a diligent inquiry under the Juvenile Court Act.
- 2 A default termination order entered without personal jurisdiction is void, excusing section 2-1401 movants from proving meritorious defense or due diligence.
- 3 Relevant for family law and juvenile court attorneys handling DCFS neglect proceedings, termination of parental rights, and service-by-publication challenges.
Summary
Alice D., a minor, was taken into DCFS custody in February 2023. After DNA testing excluded the named putative father, the State served 'any and all unknown fathers' by publication and obtained a default order terminating their parental rights in November 2024. Michael J., who later confirmed paternity through DNA testing, filed a section 2-1401 motion to vacate, alleging he had been deceived by the mother into believing another man was the biological father. The circuit court denied the motion, finding a diligent inquiry had been conducted and that Father failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense or due diligence. Father appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District.
The appellate court reversed, holding that the State's inquiry—limited solely to asking the mother to identify possible fathers—fell far short of the diligent inquiry required by section 2-16(2) of the Juvenile Court Act before resorting to service by publication. Relying on In re C.K. and DCFS Administrative Procedure No. 22, the court found the State was also required to review agency and court files and to question available relatives, including the maternal grandparents who served as foster parents and had ongoing DCFS contact. Because the State failed to conduct a diligent inquiry, the circuit court never acquired personal jurisdiction over Father, rendering the default termination order void ab initio.
The court further held that because the order was void, Father was not required to demonstrate a meritorious defense or due diligence under section 2-1401—the allegation of voidness substitutes for those requirements. This decision is significant for practitioners navigating termination proceedings involving unknown or unlocated fathers, as it establishes that publication service requires meaningful investigative steps beyond a single inquiry to the mother.
Key Holdings
1. Service by publication in juvenile proceedings is a last resort requiring a diligent inquiry under section 2-16(2) of the Juvenile Court Act; asking the mother alone to identify possible fathers is insufficient to satisfy this standard.
2. A diligent inquiry requires, at minimum, review of the complete agency and court files and questioning available relatives—including those with ongoing contact with DCFS—about the identity or whereabouts of unknown parents.
3. A default order terminating parental rights entered without personal jurisdiction over the respondent is void ab initio and subject to collateral attack at any time.
4. When a section 2-1401 petition challenges a void judgment, the petitioner need not allege or prove a meritorious defense or due diligence; the allegation of voidness substitutes for and negates those requirements.