In re Parentage of A.N.B

Overview

The Second District affirmed trial court orders establishing parentage and allocating parental responsibilities where the respondent-mother relocated the parties' two children to Russia without the father's consent. The appellate court declined to reach the merits of either issue raised—UCCJEA jurisdiction and the propriety of the default allocation judgment—because the pro se respondent failed to provide a report of proceedings or any substitute, requiring the court to presume the trial court's orders conformed with the law under Foutch v. O'Bryant.

Key Facts

• Unmarried parents cohabited in Illinois; two children born in 2017 and 2019 resided in Illinois from birth through February 2024
• Mother unilaterally relocated children to Stariy Oskol, Russia (near the Ukrainian border) in February 2024 without father's consent
• Mother obtained an emergency order of protection against father in July 2024; the plenary OP did not include the children as protected parties
• Father filed parentage and allocation petition on August 22, 2024—more than six months after the children left Illinois
• Mother argued Russia was the children's "home state" under the UCCJEA; trial court denied her § 2-619(a)(1) motion after an evidentiary hearing
• Mother fled to Russia in violation of court orders; court entered body attachment, found her in default, established parentage, and entered a default allocation judgment

Procedural History

Circuit Court of Lake County, No. 24-FA-572 (Judge Patricia L. Cornell). Father filed a parentage and allocation petition. Mother's § 2-619(a)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of UCCJEA jurisdiction was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Mother was found in default after failing to answer and fleeing to Russia. The court entered an order of parentage and a default allocation judgment. Mother appealed pro se to the Second District. No appellee brief was filed; the court proceeded under First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp.

Holdings

1. The trial court's denial of the UCCJEA jurisdictional challenge was presumed correct because respondent failed to provide a report of proceedings. Standard: Foutch presumption—incomplete record resolved against the appellant.
2. The default allocation judgment and parentage order were likewise presumed in conformity with law for the same reason.

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 36/201(a)(1) (UCCJEA home-state jurisdiction) and 750 ILCS 36/102(7) (definition of "home state," including "temporary absence" tolling)
• In re Frost, 289 Ill. App. 3d 95 (1997): The six-month clock does not begin until the remaining parent has reason to recognize the permanency of the child's out-of-state absence
• 750 ILCS 36/105(a), (c): Foreign countries treated as states for UCCJEA purposes
• McCormick v. Robertson, 2015 IL 118230: UCCJEA "jurisdiction" is a procedural limit, not a constitutional prerequisite
• Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984) and In re Marriage of Gulla, 234 Ill. 2d 414 (2009): Absent a sufficient record, orders are presumed correct
• 735 ILCS 5/2-1301(d): Default for failure to answer

Practical Implications

• Preserve the record: Appellants—especially pro se parties—must file transcripts, bystander's reports, or agreed statements of facts; failure is dispositive under Foutch
• Temporary absence doctrine: The court signaled that a parent's promise to return children may toll the six-month home-state clock under Frost, a powerful tool when opposing UCCJEA challenges in wrongful-removal cases
• Default strategy: When a respondent flees the jurisdiction and violates court orders, practitioners should move promptly for default under § 2-1301(d) and document noncompliance thoroughly
• Counterarguments: A respondent could distinguish this case by providing a complete record and demonstrating the absence was not "temporary" or that no promise to return was made

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23(b) order with no precedential value except under the narrow circumstances of Rule 23(e)(1). The court did not reach the merits of either the UCCJEA jurisdiction question or the propriety of the default/parentage procedures; the entire disposition rests on the inadequate record. The discussion of Frost's temporary-absence tolling and the suggestion that respondent's promise to return could defeat home-state status in Russia is dicta, not a binding holding. The case offers no substantive guidance on when a unilateral acknowledgment of parentage coupled with a default satisfies the Illinois Parentage Act.