In re Parentage of L.H.

Overview

This Rule 23 order affirms the trial court's judgment limiting a mother's parenting time to brief electronic contact and awarding the father sole decision-making authority. The appellate court rejected the mother's arguments that emergency orders were void for lack of jurisdiction, that due process was violated, and that the trial court abused its discretion in case management. The court found the November 2024 emergency order was properly superseded by the July 2025 final order entered after a full trial.

Key Facts

• Parents had one child (L.H., born May 2017) and litigated custody since August 2017
• Mother filed multiple emergency petitions for orders of protection (2017, 2018, 2022, 2024), all denied or withdrawn
• Mother repeatedly took child to medical providers alleging sexual abuse by father; DCFS investigations found allegations unfounded
• In November 2024, mother took child to psychiatric facility after alleging suicidal/homicidal ideations and sexual abuse; child's pediatrician stated mother was "well known to not tell accurate stories"
• Mother's counsel withdrew in May 2025; mother proceeded pro se and failed to comply with discovery and witness disclosure deadlines
• At trial, mother cross-examined witnesses but presented no witnesses or exhibits due to disclosure failures

Procedural History

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County, No. 17-F-481, Judge Bradley P. David presiding. Second District Appellate Court, Rule 23 order filed January 12, 2026. Father filed parentage petition in August 2017. Multiple allocation judgments and modifications followed. November 12, 2024 emergency order suspended mother's parenting time. Two-day trial held July 22-23, 2025, resulting in July 24, 2025 final order. Mother timely appealed.

Holdings

1. November 2024 emergency order was not void: The circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction (parentage is a justiciable matter under Ill. Const. art. VI, § 9) and personal jurisdiction (mother made general appearance and actively participated). Alleged procedural defects do not render orders void, only potentially voidable.
2. Due process challenges to emergency proceedings are moot: The temporary November 2024 order was superseded by the July 2025 final order entered after full trial; vacating the temporary order would afford no relief.
3. No abuse of discretion in case management: Trial court properly denied continuance motion where mother failed to exercise due diligence, had six months to prepare, and pursued collateral motions rather than trial preparation. Denial of substitution of judge for cause was proper where allegations stemmed from rulings, not extrajudicial sources.

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 5/603.5 and 603.10: Authorize temporary orders and protective measures when parent's conduct seriously endangers child's mental, moral, or physical health
• 750 ILCS 5/610.5: Governs modification of parenting time and decision-making
• 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(3): Substitution of judge for cause; per In re Estate of Wilson, 238 Ill. 2d 519 (2010), judge may deny without referral if petition fails threshold requirements or bias allegations lack extrajudicial source
• Void vs. Voidable: Per McCormick v. Robertson, 2015 IL 118230, once court has jurisdiction, errors render orders voidable, not void
• Temporary Orders: Per In re Marriage of Fields, 283 Ill. App. 3d 894, temporary orders are superseded by final orders after full hearing

Practical Implications

• Emergency orders: Practitioners should understand that emergency/temporary orders are provisional and challenges become moot once superseded by final orders after full hearing
• Jurisdiction arguments: Distinguish between void (lack of subject matter/personal jurisdiction) and voidable (procedural errors); most procedural defects do not deprive court of jurisdiction
• Substitution for cause: Allegations based solely on adverse rulings will not support substitution; must identify extrajudicial source of bias and comply with affidavit requirement
• Discovery compliance: Courts will enforce disclosure deadlines strictly; failure to comply may result in barring witnesses and exhibits even for pro se litigants
• Pattern of unfounded allegations: Repeated unfounded abuse allegations can support findings that parent seriously endangered child's wellbeing, justifying restricted parenting time

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order and is not precedent except in limited circumstances under Rule 23(e)(1). The holdings regarding jurisdiction, mootness of temporary order challenges, and case management discretion apply established precedent rather than creating new law. The court's discussion of the "derivative nullities" theory (analogizing to criminal "fruit of the poisonous tree") was rejected but constitutes dicta regarding a novel argument. The specific factual findings regarding the mother's conduct are case-specific and not binding on future cases.