Dep't of Healthcare & Family Servs. ex rel. Sanders v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 01 February 2022
• Docket Number: 1-21-0409
• Citation: 2022 IL App (1st) 210409,201 N.E.3d 75,460 Ill.Dec. 417
• Parties: The DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES EX REL. Lisa SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Demond EDWARDS, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2022 IL App (1st) 210409
201 N.E.3d 75
460 Ill.Dec. 417

The DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES EX REL. Lisa SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Demond EDWARDS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 1-21-0409

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SECOND DIVISION.

Filed February 1, 2022

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Chicago (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Benjamin F. Jacobson, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Cederoth, Leslie E. Kuhn-Thayer, Jackson T. Garvey, and Esther A. Ju, of Sidley Austin LLP, of Chicago, for appellee.

PRESIDING JUSTICE FITZGERALD SMITH delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

460 Ill.Dec. 419

¶ 1 This appeal stems from a 2003 petition filed by the Department of Healthcare

201 N.E.3d 78

460 Ill.Dec. 420

and Family Services (the Department) on behalf of Lisa Sanders, seeking to establish that the respondent, Demond Edwards, was the father of her minor child, Demarion, and to set child support obligation for him. After conducting a hearing at which the respondent failed to appear, the circuit court granted the Department's petition and entered a default child support order against him. Sixteen years later, the respondent filed a motion to quash service and challenged the support order as void based on an alleged defect in the substitute service of process made on him. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court granted the respondent's motion to quash service and found that the child support order was void. The Department now appeals. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The record below reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history. In February 2003, pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) ( 750 ILCS 22/100 et seq. (West 2002)), the Department filed a petition on behalf of Sanders, seeking to determine the existence of a parental relationship between the respondent and Sanders's minor son, Demarion, and to establish the respondent's child support obligation. The petition alleged that the respondent was Demarion's biological father and that he was obligated to provide child support.

¶ 4 The Cook County Sheriff's Department certified substitute service of process on the respondent. According to that certificate, on April 22, 2003, a copy of the UIFSA petition and summons were left at the respondent's usual place of abode, at 13634 South Lowe Avenue, in Riverdale, Illinois. The certificate states that service was left with an individual named "Prez," who identified herself as over 13 years of age, a resident of the household, and the respondent's mother. The certificate further notes that this individual was an African American woman, approximately 43 years of age.

¶ 5 After the respondent failed to answer the UIFSA petition or appear in court, on August 14, 2003, the circuit court held a hearing in his absence and entered an order finding that he was Demarion's biological father. On September 29, 2003, the circuit court entered a default judgment against the respondent, finding that he owed $1803 in retroactive child support. The court additionally entered a monthly child support obligation of $300.50 plus $10 per month to pay down the arrears, noting that the respondent's obligation would end in November 2020, when Demarion turned 18.

¶ 6 Sixteen years after the child support order was entered, on June 18, 2019, the respondent filed the instant motion to quash service and set aside the child support order as void. In his motion, the respondent alleged that he first learned of the child support order in February 2019, during settlement negotiations in an unrelated matter. He contended that he never received proper service of process because 13634 South Lowe Avenue was not his usual place of abode. Further, the respondent argued that substitute service was per se unreasonable because, at the time of service, he was in the custody of the Cook County Sheriff's Department. The respondent therefore argued that the court should quash service and declare all the orders entered in the child support proceedings void.

¶ 7 In support of his motion, the respondent attached (1) an affidavit from his mother, Leathritiea Perez and (2) a printout from the Cook County Sheriff's website showing that he was incarcerated there between March 14, and May 5, 2003.

201 N.E.3d 79

460 Ill.Dec. 421

¶ 8 In her affidavit, Perez attested that in April 2003, she was 46 years old and lived at 13634 South Lowe Avenue in Hillside, Illinois. She stated that the respondent, who was her son, never resided there and that she was not aware of his whereabouts in 2003. Perez further attested that she could not recall receiving any court related documents for the respondent in 2003, either in person or in the mail. In addition, she attested that she was likely not at home at the time of service because she was usually out of the house on weekdays between 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.

¶ 9 On August 9, 2019, the Department filed its response, arguing that the respondent's motion to quash should be denied. The Department asserted that, as a matter of law, the Cook County Sheriff's certificate of service could not be set aside absent clear and satisfactory evidence. The Department argued that Perez's self-serving affidavit did not constitute such clear and satisfactory evidence because Perez used only noncommittal statements, such as that she did not "recall" receiving the summons and that "usually" she was out of the house at the time service would have been made.

¶ 10 In addition, the Department pointed out that Perez's affidavit stated that the respondent never resided with her in Hillside, whereas the Sheriff's certificate stated service was completed in Riverdale, Illinois. To the contrary, the Department pointed out that the respondent's work records, which were obtained by way of a subpoena to the respondent's employer on August 19, 2003, revealed that as early as December 2002, the respondent resided at 13634 South Lowe Avenue in Riverdale. Additionally, according to the Department, the respondent's arrest records indicated that a month before substitute service was made, in March 2003, he was transported to the Riverdale police lockup where his state-issued identification (ID) revealed that his residence was 13634 South Lowe Avenue.

¶ 11 Lastly, in its response, the Department argued that the motion to quash should be denied because the respondent had made material misrepresentations of facts and had unclean hands. In this respect, the Department pointed out that contrary to the respondent's assertion that he did not become aware of the child support order until 2019, the respondent had, in fact, paid some child support beginning in 2008 and had sent a signed request for a downward modification in that child support to the Department in 2012.

¶ 12 In support, the Department attached copies of the respondent's (1) 2002 work records, (2) 2003 arrest records, and (3) the 2012 letter requesting a downward modification in child support.

¶ 13 In addition to its response, on August 9, 2019, the Department filed a request to admit, asking that the respondent admit, inter alia , that (1) in 2002, he lived at 13634 South Lowe Avenue in Riverdale and (2) in 2003, during his arrest, he provided the Riverdale address as his residence. The Department also asked the respondent to admit that he knew about the child support order prior to 2019 and that he had made some payments on that order beginning in 2008.

¶ 14 On August 30, 2019, the respondent filed his responses to the request to admit. Therein, he denied ever living at 13634 South Lowe Avenue, including in 2002 or at the time of his arrest in 2003. The respondent admitted to having signed and sent the 2012 modification of child support request but stated that he did not recall having done so until receiving the Department's response. The respondent further denied making any child support payments since 2008. In addition, he stated that he could not recall any wage garnishment or

201 N.E.3d 80

460 Ill.Dec. 422

other involuntary collections made under that child support order.

¶ 15 On September 3, 2019, the respondent filed his reply, asserting that contrary to the Department's position, the Sheriff's certificate is not presumptively valid and could be attacked with the affidavit submitted by his mother, Perez. In addition, the respondent asserted that absent any counteraffidavits from the Department, the court was required to accept Perez's affidavit as true. With respect to that affidavit noting Perez's address as being in Hillside, instead of Riverdale, the respondent asserted that this was a typo.

¶ 16 In addition, the respondent argued that the evidence submitted by both parties, at best, showed that in 2003 he lived a transient lifestyle and that 13634 Lowe Avenue was his temporary mailing address, rather than his usual place of abode.

¶ 17 Finally, the respondent argued that because service must be...