In re Custody of K.N.L., 2019 IL App (5th) 190082

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Custody of K.N.L., 2019 IL App (5th) 190082 (5th Dist. July 2, 2019).
- Petitioners/Appellants: Gary & Rebecca Ferrari (nonparents/foster caregivers).
- Respondent/Appellee: Bethany Nicholle Moore (natural mother).
- Judgment: Trial court dismissal affirmed.

2. Key legal issues
- Do nonparents have statutory standing under 750 ILCS 5/601.2(b)(3) to file for allocation of parental responsibilities when a child is in their physical care but legal custody rests with DCFS?
- Whether a parent’s stipulation/admission in a juvenile neglect proceeding and placement with foster caregivers constitutes a voluntary and indefinite relinquishment of “physical custody” for purposes of section 601.2(b)(3). (Alternative remedy: visitation under 750 ILCS 5/602.9.)

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal: petitioners lacked standing under § 601.2(b)(3) because the mother had not voluntarily and indefinitely relinquished physical custody of the child.

4. Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Standing to seek allocation is statutory and nonparents bear the burden to prove it; the question is assessed as of the date relief is sought and reviewed de novo.
- “Physical custody” in § 601.2(b)(3) requires voluntary and indefinite relinquishment, not mere possession. Courts consider (1) who handled care/welfare before proceedings, (2) how possession was acquired, and (3) nature/duration of possession.
- Although petitioners performed day-to-day care for ~2.5 years (factor 1 favored them), factors 2–3 favored the mother: DCFS placed the child after temporary custody was awarded in a neglect proceeding; the permanency plan explicitly contemplated the child’s return if the mother complied; the mother’s stipulation and cooperation were found to be made in a coercive shelter-care/child-protection context and aimed at reunification, not an intent to permanently surrender custody.
- The court emphasized that admissions to obtain services or to cooperate with DCFS do not automatically equal a voluntary, indefinite relinquishment of parental custody.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Nonparents in foster/kinship roles should not assume § 601.2 standing merely from prolonged physical care; establish clear evidence of the parent’s voluntary, indefinite relinquishment if seeking allocation.
- When placement stems from DCFS action, consider filing under § 602.9 (statutory visitation for certain nonparents) or seek intervention in the juvenile case rather than a § 601.2 petition.
- Expect evidentiary hearings on standing; collect documentary evidence showing parent intent, communications with DCFS, permanency plans, and whether placement was voluntary.
- Defense counsel for parents should highlight the statutory safeguard of parental rights, the coercive context of shelter-care proceedings, and the parent’s expressed intent to reunify.
- Timing and service nuances (petition filing vs. service coinciding with reunification) may be relevant — preserve arguments on timeliness/standing.