In re Parentage of D.S., 2021 IL App (1st) 192257 (Apr. 27, 2021)

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of D.S., 2021 IL App (1st) 192257.
- Petitioner-Appellant: Colton S. (seeking declaration of parentage and allocation of parental responsibilities).
- Respondent-Appellee: Aura C.-K. (mother).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a petition to establish parentage and allocate parental responsibilities may proceed where the child was conceived when the mother was a minor and the mother alleges nonconsensual sexual penetration, under §622 of the Illinois Parentage Act of 2015 (750 ILCS 46/622).
- Proper procedural vehicle for dismissal: whether respondent’s §622 allegation operates as an affirmative defense under 735 ILCS 5/2‑619.
- Whether alleged prior consent (to parenting/time or to the relationship) can defeat the statutory bar.

3) Holding/outcome
- Appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal with prejudice of petitioner’s parentage petition. The trial court correctly treated respondent’s §622 claim as a 2‑619 affirmative matter and concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that allocation of parental responsibilities to petitioner was prohibited.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court looked past labels and treated respondent’s motion as a 2‑619 dismissal because §622 operates as an affirmative defense that negates the legal effect of a parentage petition.
- The trial court found respondent was 15 at conception and petitioner 19, rendering respondent incapable of consenting to sexual penetration as a matter of law; that finding met the court’s clear-and-convincing evidentiary frame on the record (testimony, DCFS safety plan, police reports, family testimony).
- The panel emphasized the Parentage Act’s protective purpose—§622 was intended to prevent assailants from obtaining parental rights—and rejected reading §622 to allow a “best interest of the child” override or to permit retroactive waiver of the statutory bar by informal or later acquiescence.
- The absence of an appellee brief did not preclude resolution on the merits where the record was straightforward.

5) Practice implications for attorneys
- When mother alleges nonconsensual conception (including statutory incapacity due to age), raise §622 as an affirmative 2‑619 defense early; gather contemporaneous evidence (DCFS findings, police reports, medical records, witness testimony) to support the statutory bar.
- Petitioners seeking parentage where the mother was a minor should anticipate that §622 may be dispositive and that courts will not substitute a best‑interest analysis to override the statute. Plan to rebut statutory-incapacity/nonconsent with strong, contemporaneous evidence of lawful consent and absence of coercion.
- Even where a party fails to file an appellee brief, a clear record will permit appellate courts to dispose of the appeal on the merits.