In re Adoption of Konieczny, 2022 IL App (2d) 210333

- Case citation and parties
In re Adoption of Konieczny, 2022 IL App (2d) 210333 (Feb. 10, 2022). Petitioners-Appellees: Karen L. Magnuson & Scott C. Magnuson. Respondent-Appellant: Frank J. Konieczny. (Adult adoptee: Ariana B. Konieczny/Magnuson.)

- Key legal issues
1) Whether a nonparty biological parent has standing to pursue a 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401 petition to vacate part of an adoption decree that terminated his parental rights.
2) Whether a trial court may terminate parental rights (and bar future challenges) in an adult adoption without personal jurisdiction over the parent or notice/ hearing, i.e., whether that portion of the decree is void.
3) Procedural effect of alleging a judgment is void in a § 2‑1401 petition (merits/diligence requirements).

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Frank’s § 2‑1401 petition, concluding Frank had standing and that the portion of the adoption judgment terminating his parental rights (and forever barring challenge) was void for lack of personal jurisdiction. That portion of the judgment was vacated; the court rejected the notion that biological parents have no due‑process interests in being served where a decree purports to extinguish parental rights.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
• Standing: A § 2‑1401 petitioner need only show injury by the judgment and benefit from its reversal; nonparties may seek relief under § 2‑1401 without prior intervention (citing G.M. Sign). Requiring prior intervention where the nonparty lacked notice would be illogical.
• Voidness and due process: Because Frank received no notice or service, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to terminate his parental rights. Fundamental due‑process principles require notice and opportunity to be heard before a judgment affects a person’s rights. An order entered without jurisdiction is void.
• Procedural law: When a § 2‑1401 petition alleges a judgment is void, the usual requirements to plead a meritorious defense and due diligence do not apply. Dismissal under § 2‑619 was improper where the petition properly alleged voidness.

- Practice implications for counsel
• For adopters: Do not include allegations or prayers terminating parental rights (or language barring future challenges) in adult adoptions unless the parent is properly served and the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate those rights. Surplus or coercive language can be void and later vacated.
• For parents/nonparties: A biological parent who learns of an adoption judgment that allegedly extinguishes parental rights may move under § 2‑1401 to vacate the void portions without prior intervention. Allegations of voidness bypass meritorious‑defense/diligence pleading requirements.
• For trial courts/counsel: Be explicit about jurisdictional findings and ensure required notice where a decree could affect nonparty interests; avoid omnibus judgments that purport to divest unserved persons of fundamental rights.