In re Parentage of Jade J.

Summary

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of Jasmine E.’s section 2-1401 motion seeking to vacate a 2017 child-support modification order for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that, under section 205(a)(2) of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Jasmine consented to the Illinois court’s continuing jurisdiction when her attorney appeared on her behalf, sought a continuance, participated without objecting to jurisdiction, and allowed substantive orders to be entered. The court also concluded that Jasmine later forfeited her jurisdictional challenge during summary-judgment proceedings.

Holdings

1. Because neither Timothy, Jasmine, nor the child resided in Illinois when the modification petition was filed, Illinois could modify the controlling support order only if the parties consented in a record or in open court under section 205(a)(2) of UIFSA.
2. Jasmine consented in the record and in open court to Illinois's continuing jurisdiction when her attorney appeared on her behalf on December 9, 2015, sought leave to file an appearance and a continuance, did not object to jurisdiction, participated in the setting of response, discovery, and hearing deadlines, and did not object when the court entered substantive temporary support orders.
3. Jasmine forfeited her personal-jurisdiction challenge when, during the 2024 summary-judgment proceedings, she appeared through counsel and affirmatively agreed that the circuit court had jurisdiction.
4. The circuit court properly granted Timothy's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Jasmine's section 2-1401 motion because the circuit court had jurisdiction to enter the 2017 child-support modification order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Illinois circuit court had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under section 205(a)(2) of UIFSA to modify the child-support order when neither parent nor the child resided in Illinois.
2. Whether Jasmine consented in a record or in open court to Illinois jurisdiction through her attorney's appearance and conduct at the December 9, 2015 hearing.
3. Whether Jasmine forfeited her personal-jurisdiction challenge by later appearing through counsel and affirmatively agreeing during summary-judgment proceedings that the court had jurisdiction.
4. Whether summary judgment and dismissal of Jasmine's section 2-1401 motion were proper.

Disposition

affirmed