In re Adoption of G.T.

- Case citation and parties
In re Adoption of G.T., 2025 IL App (4th) 250232-U. Petitioner‑Appellant: Wesley E. (putative father). Respondent‑Appellee: Madalyn T. (mother); adoption by stepfather Alex M. (intervening adoptive parent).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing a 2‑1401 petition to vacate an adoption judgment on res judicata grounds.
2. Whether a prior dismissal of the putative father’s parentage action precludes a collateral attack on an adoption judgment that allegedly obtained jurisdiction without notice to a known father.
3. Related procedural/threshold matters: adequacy of notice in adoption proceedings, timing/standing of putative fathers, and proper use of motions to dismiss (735 ILCS 5/2‑615/2‑619; 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401).

- Holding / outcome
The Fourth District reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Wesley’s section 2‑1401 petition. The appellate court held the trial court erred in applying res judicata to bar the petition to vacate the adoption judgment. The cause was remanded for further proceedings.

- Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
The court summarized res judicata’s three elements: (1) a final judgment on the merits; (2) identity of the cause of action; and (3) identity of parties/privities. Although the dismissal of Wesley’s parentage petition was a final, unappealed judgment, that alone did not satisfy the identity‑of‑cause‑of‑action requirement. The parentage dismissal relied on the adoption judgment (which terminated parental rights), whereas Wesley’s 2‑1401 petition expressly attacked the validity of that adoption judgment for lack of jurisdiction/notice to a known biological father. Because the adoption’s validity was not litigated in the parentage action, applying res judicata would be circular. The court therefore concluded res judicata did not bar a collateral attack via section 2‑1401 on an adoption judgment allegedly procured without jurisdiction over a known putative father. The opinion reiterates that motions to dismiss raising affirmative matters outside the pleadings are governed by section 2‑619 and reviewed de novo.

- Practice implications (brief)
- Defense counsel cannot rely on a prior parentage dismissal to foreclose collateral attacks on the underlying adoption judgment unless the earlier proceeding actually adjudicated the adoption’s validity (identity of cause).
- Putative fathers should promptly register and file parentage actions and preserve notice/consent objections; failure to do so risks loss of rights but does not automatically negate all later jurisdictional challenges.
- Adoption petitioners must document good‑faith, diligent efforts to locate known fathers; service by publication may be insufficient when a father is known.
- Use 2‑619 dismissals carefully; appellate review is de novo. Consider 2‑1401 as the vehicle to attack void judgments for lack of jurisdiction.