William B. v. Rachel H. (In re W.J.B)
| Decision Date | 15 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 2-14-0361,s. 2-14-0361 |
| Citation | 68 N.E.3d 977,2016 IL App (2d) 140361 |
| Parties | IN RE PARENTAGE OF W.J.B., a Minor, William B., Petitioner-Appellee, v. Rachel H., Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Megan C. Harris, of Mirabella, Kincaid, Frederick & Mirabella, LLC, of Wheaton, for appellant.
James W. Hanauer, of Wheaton, for appellee.
¶ 1 Petitioner, William B., filed a parentage petition in Du Page County to establish a parent-child relationship with the minor, W.J.B., pursuant to the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984 (750 ILCS 45/1 et seq. (West 2012)). Respondent, Rachel H., filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2–619.1 (West 2012) ), alleging lack of both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. The trial court found that it had jurisdiction over respondent and entered a preliminary injunction preventing respondent from removing the minor from the State of Illinois. Respondent filed a petition for leave to appeal, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010), which we granted. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that it had personal jurisdiction over respondent. We affirm.
¶ 3 The parties are the natural parents of the minor, who was born on April 25, 2011. The parties are not married. Petitioner is a resident of Illinois. On February 28, 2014, petitioner filed a petition to establish parentage.
¶ 4 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on March 25, 2014, for lack of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, alleging the following. Respondent is a resident of North Carolina, and the minor resided there with her. Respondent underwent emergency surgery due to massive internal bleeding, and on October 5, 2013, the minor's paternal grandparents, who reside in Illinois, took the minor to Illinois to allow respondent time to rest and recover after her surgery. They agreed to allow the minor to stay with them only on a temporary basis while she recovered. Respondent made arrangements to pick up the minor from the grandparents in December 2013; however, she agreed to extend his time there on a temporary basis to allow petitioner to visit with the minor while he was in Illinois for the Christmas holiday. Petitioner had been stationed in California due to his employment in the United States military. Respondent attempted to make arrangements to pick up the minor in February 2014, but the grandparents would not respond to her communications. Respondent finally picked up the minor on March 15, 2014.
¶ 5 On March 28, 2014, petitioner filed an emergency motion for a temporary injunction and for an order to return the minor to Illinois.
¶ 6 On April 1, 2014, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on respondent's motion to dismiss and on petitioner's motion for emergency relief. At the hearing, respondent testified that she had "significant surgery" at the end of September 2013. She spoke to petitioner on the phone about it, and he said that he would call his mother. The minor still lived with respondent until his grandmother and aunt flew out to North Carolina in October 2013 to pick up the minor and bring him to Illinois while respondent recovered from the surgery. When they discussed the minor's care, respondent told them that the minor would go out to visit with them for the time being but that he would be coming back. "They were helping me so that I had time to recover from the surgery that I had, because there would be bleeding for a long period of time, and that was our agreement, is that [the minor] would go to visit and he would come back." Respondent further testified that she wanted to pick up the minor after Christmas 2013, so that petitioner could visit him in Illinois while he was on furlough for the Christmas holiday. However, she did not pick up the minor after the Christmas holiday, because she was told that the weather was too bad and "there was too much snow."
¶ 7 On cross-examination, respondent testified that the minor resided with his grandparents from October 5, 2013, through March 15, 2014. During that time, respondent did not visit the minor at all. The surgery was performed on an outpatient basis at the end of September and she was given three days off from work following the surgery.
¶ 8 Respondent stated that she was served with the parentage petition on March 13, 2014, and drove the following day to Illinois to pick up the minor. Respondent had a valid driver's license and an operational vehicle while the minor was in Illinois. Respondent further testified that, although her fiancé lived with her after her surgery, she chose to have the grandparents care for the minor.
¶ 9 Following respondent's testimony, petitioner requested a directed finding. Petitioner argued that, based on respondent's own testimony, this was more than just a visit; there was no timetable, and the pickup occurred only after she had been served on March 13. Respondent argued that the minor was here because,
¶ 10 In granting the directed finding, the trial court noted that section 201 of the Illinois Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (the Act) (750 ILCS 22/201 (West 2012) ) provides the bases for jurisdiction over a nonresident when a parentage action is brought. The court pointed to section 201(a)(5) of the Act (750 ILCS 22/201(a)(5) (West 2012)), which applies if the child resides in this state as a result of the acts or directives of the nonresident.
¶ 11 In applying section 201(a)(5), the court noted that respondent testified that, in the summer of 2013, she drove to Ohio to meet the paternal grandparents part way so that they could bring the minor to Illinois. The court further stated: Accordingly, the court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the motion for a directed finding.
¶ 12 Respondent orally moved to reconsider, asking that the court consider Kulko v. Superior Court of California , 436 U.S. 84, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). The court denied the motion, finding Kulko "dramatically different" from the case at bar.
¶ 13 The court then addressed the petition for temporary injunctive relief. Respondent did not participate in that portion of the proceedings, because she did not want to waive her jurisdictional argument. Based on petitioner's pleadings, the trial court entered an order preliminarily enjoining respondent from removing the minor from Illinois.
¶ 14 Pursuant to Rule 306(a)(5), we granted respondent's petition for leave to appeal. On appeal, respondent contends that the trial court improperly denied her motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
¶ 16 We initially address respondent's request to strike petitioner's statement of facts as containing argument, conclusory comments, and misstatements of fact. The motion is denied, but we emphasize that we are cognizant of the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(6) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). In resolving respondent's appeal, we have ignored any argumentative statements, conclusory comments, and misstatements of fact contained in petitioner's statement of facts.
¶ 18 We now turn to the appropriate standard of review after a trial court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the matter of personal jurisdiction. Respondent claims that the standard is "clearly erroneous." We disagree.
¶ 19 It is well understood that a plaintiff "bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that the trial court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant." McNally v. Morrison , 408 Ill.App.3d 248, 254, 351 Ill.Dec. 363, 951 N.E.2d 183 (2011). "To determine whether the plaintiff has set forth a prima facie case for jurisdiction, the trial court must consider the uncontroverted pleadings, documents and affidavits, as well as any facts asserted by the defendant that have not been contradicted by the plaintiff."
Cardenas Marketing Network, Inc. v. Pabon , 2012 IL App (1st) 111645, ¶ 28, 361 Ill.Dec. 887, 972 N.E.2d 680. When the trial court bases its decision solely on such documentary evidence, its dismissal of a case for lack of personal jurisdiction is reviewed de novo . McNally , 408 Ill.App.3d at 254, 351 Ill.Dec. 363, 951 N.E.2d 183.
¶ 20 When material evidentiary conflicts exist, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve those disputes. Russell v. SNFA , 408 Ill.App.3d 827, 831–32, 349 Ill.Dec. 580, 946 N.E.2d 1076 (2011). "[I]f there are disputes regarding issues of fact that ‘determine whether the court has personal jurisdiction, the trial court must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Lisa H. (In re A.L.)
-
People v. Mark Z. (In re M.K.)
...what information it determined was helpful and appropriate to consider because we are not in a position to do so. In re Parentage of W.J.B., 2016 IL App (2d) 140361, ¶ 25, 68 N.E.3d 977.¶ 66 The trial court's findings are abundantly clear that it believed respondent was unfit and M.K. shoul......
-
People v. Rommel D. (In re A.N.)
...matters of witness credibility, the weight to be given to the evidence, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence. In re Parentage of W.J.B., 2016 IL App (2d) 140361, ¶ 25, 68 N.E.3d 977.¶ 43 2. This Case¶ 44 The trial court's finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. ......
-
People v. Zack T. (In re C.T.)
...matters of witness credibility, the weight to be given to the evidence, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence. In re Parentage of W.J.B., 2016 IL App (2d) 140361, ¶ 25, 68 N.E.3d ¶ 39 B. This Case ¶ 40 Respondent argues the trial court's finding was against the manifest weight of the......