In re Parentage of D.F., 2024 IL App (1st) 231784

- Case citation and parties
In re Parentage of D.F., 2024 IL App (1st) 231784. Petitioner-Appellant: Leslie Ward; Respondent-Appellee: Jennifer Froelich. First District, Fifth Division. Appeal from Cook County circuit court. Judgment reversed and remanded.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether petitioner had standing to seek parentage and parenting-time relief under the Illinois Parentage Act of 2015 (750 ILCS 46/602) or under common law theories (e.g., equitable/“de facto” parenting, promissory estoppel, oral contract).
2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the petition under section 2‑619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure for lack of standing, when dismissal was based solely on legal construction without supporting evidentiary material.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court reversed the circuit court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard: A section 2‑619(a)(9) dismissal is appropriate only where an affirmative matter negating the claim is apparent on the face of the complaint or is supported by affidavits or evidentiary materials. All well‑pleaded facts and reasonable inferences must be accepted as true.
- The appellate court found the trial court erred in resolving standing as a pure legal bar on a motion to dismiss where petitioner alleged detailed factual predicates for statutory and common-law standing. Leslie’s petition pleaded facts that, if true, fit within multiple statutory categories she invoked in the Parentage Act (e.g., alleging herself as a parent, financial support, and intent to parent) and alleged common‑law claims (promissory estoppel/oral contract and extensive parental conduct).
- The court rejected the trial court’s “floodgates” concern as an insufficient basis to dismiss at the pleadings stage and stressed that the legislature broadened routes to standing in the Parentage Act; factual disputes about whether pleaded conduct suffices must be resolved after appropriate development of the record.

- Practice implications for attorneys
- Plead with specificity. When seeking parentage or parenting time under the Parentage Act or equitable theories, allege concrete facts: intent to parent, participation in fertility decisions, shared financial support, day‑to‑day parenting acts, representations/promises about adoption, and the child’s relationship‑based identifiers (e.g., child calling non-birth parent “Mommy”).
- Resist premature 2‑619 dismissal challenges by emphasizing the rule that affirmative matter must be supported by evidentiary material; standing often turns on factual inquiry inappropriate for dismissal on the pleadings.
- When moving to dismiss for lack of standing, supply admissible evidence (affidavits, records) if you contend an affirmative matter defeats the claim.
- Consider both statutory and common‑law theories in parentage disputes involving same‑sex or nonbiological caregivers; courts will not mechanically bar claims at the pleadings stage where the complaint alleges plausible parental relationships.