In re Adoption of E.M.H., F.M.H., & M.L.H., No. 2-21-0497 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. Mar. 25, 2022) (Order under Supreme Ct. R. 23(b))

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Adoption of E.M.H., F.M.H., and M.L.H., 2022 IL App (2d) 210497-U.
- Petitioner-Appellant: Michael C. Clack (pro se). Respondent-Appellee: Yesenia A. Hernandez. (DeKalb County circuit court; appeal from denial of 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401(f) petition.)

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a post‑adoption 2‑1401(f) petition may void an adoption judgment based on an alleged oral agreement by the custodial parent to waive child support and to keep a marriage “on paper.”
- Whether alleged text‑message evidence was improperly excluded.
- Whether enforcement of such an agreement implicates due process or property rights.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court properly dismissed the 2‑1401(f) petition. The alleged agreement to forgo child support and use marriage only to secure termination/adoption is unenforceable as against public policy; any evidentiary ruling was at most harmless.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The court relied on public‑policy principles protecting children’s right to support and precedent (In re Adoption of Daly, 36 Ill. App. 3d 962 (1976)) refusing to allow parental bargains to impair minors’ support rights. The Illinois Uniform Premarital Agreement Act also bars adversely affecting a child’s right to support (750 ILCS 10/4(b)).
- An agreement between adults to waive the children’s support cannot be enforced, even if exchanged for assistance in obtaining an adoption. Where parties are equally at fault in making a contract contrary to public policy, courts will not enforce it (O’Hara v. Ahlgren, Blumenfeld & Kempster).
- Any failure to admit text messages or procedural defects did not change the legal bar to petitioner’s claim; alleged fraud/duress did not create a viable route to void the adoption where enforcement would harm the children.
- Appellate brief insufficiency and forfeiture noted (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7)), but court addressed merits.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Private agreements to waive child support or otherwise bargain away a child’s support are unenforceable; litigants cannot later use such agreements to void adoptions.
- Challenging an adoption on equitable or contract grounds faces steep public‑policy barriers—attack the adoption based on recognized grounds (procedural fraud affecting court jurisdiction or the integrity of the adoption process), not private contracts.
- Preserve admissible evidence (chronology, foundation) and procedural steps (timely responses to RFAs); evidentiary failures may be harmless if the legal claim is barred.
- Counsel pro se petitioners to understand statutory limits of 2‑1401 relief and that due‑process/property arguments cannot salvage an illegal contract to the detriment of children.