In re Adoption of M.A.E., 2022 IL App (5th) 210291-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Adoption of M.A.E., 2022 IL App (5th) 210291-U.
- Petitioners/Appellees: Michael H. and Savannah H. (mother and stepfather/adoptive parents).
- Respondent/Appellant: Dean T. Jr. (biological father).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing respondent’s 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401 petition to vacate the adoption judgment for lack of proper service.
- Whether the petitioners (or their counsel) voluntarily submitted to jurisdiction so as to waive service defects.
- Whether respondent exercised due diligence in attempting to effectuate service and thus was entitled to additional time to cure service defects.

3. Holding / outcome
- The Fifth District affirmed. The trial court properly dismissed the 2‑1401 petition because the respondent failed to properly serve the petitioners and did not establish due diligence warranting more time. The respondent’s other arguments (due process at the adoption hearing; manifest weight of unfitness findings) were not reviewed on appeal because no timely direct appeal was taken from the adoption order.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The appellate court accepted the trial court’s finding that respondent’s only service attempts were: emailing pleadings and leaving a copy in the petitioners’ office/mailbox. Those methods did not constitute proper service under applicable Illinois process rules for a 2‑1401 petition.
- The court rejected the respondent’s contention that the petitioners’ counsel’s participation in status hearings and correspondence amounted to voluntary submission to jurisdiction. Counsel’s limited contacts (participation in status conferences and filing a motion to strike for lack of service) were held insufficient to constitute waiver because petitioners never filed pleadings addressing the merits.
- Respondent failed to carry his burden to show due diligence in service efforts (no adequate proof of attempts to personally serve, use of process server, or statutory/ rule‑compliant alternative). Accordingly, he was not entitled to additional time to effect proper service.

5. Practice implications (for attorneys)
- Strictly comply with statutory and court rules for service of a 2‑1401 petition; email and informal mailbox drops are unreliable and may be rejected as ineffective.
- If opposing counsel offers to “accept service,” obtain clear, written, contemporaneous authorization (signed/emailed) and file proof of that acceptance. Oral or ambiguous communications are risky.
- Limited participation by opposing counsel (status calls, motions directed at service) does not waive defective service; only substantive engagement on the merits will likely be treated as voluntary submission.
- If a client was incarcerated or otherwise unable to attend a critical hearing, ensure a record of continuance requests or arrangements (remote appearance) — absence without such attempts undermines later collateral attacks.
- When service difficulties arise, document all diligent attempts (affidavits of process servers, certified mail receipts, attempts to locate party) if seeking relief or additional time to effect service.