In re Parentage of Daelyn O.-M., 2022 IL App (2d) 220258-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of Daelyn, O.-M., 2022 IL App (2d) 220258-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Nov. 23, 2022) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner/Appellant: Jessica Araceli O.-M. (mother). Respondent/Appellee: Gabriel Espinoza‑Ramos (deceased alleged father). Lower court: Kendall County Circuit Court (Judge Jody Patton Gleason).

2. Key legal issues
- Proper venue under the Illinois Parentage Act of 2015 (750 ILCS 46/101 et seq.) for a petition seeking allocation of parental responsibilities where the alleged father is deceased and his estate proceedings are (or would be) in Mexico.
- Whether the trial court correctly denied the petition for lack of venue relying on section 46/604(a) rather than 46/604(b).

3. Holding/outcome
- Reversed and remanded. The appellate court held the trial court relied on the wrong statutory provision; venue for allocation of parental responsibilities is governed by 750 ILCS 46/604(b) (the county where the child resides), not the subsection concerning venue for adjudicating parentage and estate proceedings.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory interpretation was dispositive and reviewed de novo. The court read section 46/604 as a two‑part provision: (a) addresses venue for adjudicating parentage and is expressly limited to "any county of this State"; (b) specifically governs "a proceeding for the allocation of parental responsibilities" and fixes venue in the county of the child’s residence.
- Because petitioner sought allocation of sole parental responsibility for her minor child who resided in Kendall County, subsection (b) controlled. Relying on subsection (a) to send venue to Mexico (based on the deceased father’s estate) was improper and illogical where custody — not probate — was at issue and the father had been dead for years.
- The court emphasized the plain language of the statute and rejected reading (a) as authorizing venue outside Illinois.

5. Practice implications
- For parentage practitioners: distinguish between proceedings “to adjudicate parentage” and proceedings “for the allocation of parental responsibilities.” File custody/allocation petitions in the county where the child resides per 750 ILCS 46/604(b), even if the alleged father is deceased and any estate matters lie abroad.
- Trial courts should not conflate probate/estate venue considerations with child‑custody venue under the Parentage Act.
- For clients seeking Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) predicate findings, ensure correct venue to avoid dismissal and delay of immigration relief.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 order (nonprecedential except in limited circumstances) but offers persuasive guidance on statutory construction and venue under the Parentage Act.