In re Parentage of G.F., 2023 IL App (1st) 220452-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of G.F. and L.F., Minors, No. 1-22-0452, 2023 IL App (1st) 220452-U (Mar. 22, 2023).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Sandra Szeremeta. Respondent-Appellant: Jeffrey Foster. (Parentage action involving minors G.F. and L.F.)

2. Key legal issues
- Whether an agreed parental-order that (a) restricted parenting time pending completion of therapy, (b) required mental evaluations and therapy, and (c) included a limited waiver of counseling confidentiality (referring to 750 ILCS 5/607.6), was void as violating statutory requirements (including section 603.10 and section 607.6).
- Whether the circuit court erred in denying Jeffrey’s 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 petition to vacate that agreed order by applying res judicata (and, relatedly, whether Jeffrey could raise a “voidness” challenge despite procedural bars).

3. Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s denial of the section 2‑1401 petition.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Jurisdiction and standards: the court treated the appeal as from denial of a section 2‑1401 petition (appealable per Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(3)); legal challenges to judgments (voidness claims) are reviewed de novo.
- Consent orders and voluntariness: the agreed order was a consent judgment signed by both parties and the judge while the respondent was represented; the court emphasized that consent orders are not lightly set aside as void. A party cannot avoid ordinary procedural rules merely by labeling an attack as a “voidness” claim where the record demonstrates voluntary agreement and an absence of a jurisdictional defect.
- Procedural bars and res judicata/waiver: because the record showed opportunities to raise statutory objections earlier (e.g., in motions to reconsider or on direct appeal) and the parties negotiated the provisions, the court properly refused to treat the agreement as void; thus the petitioner was subject to the normal section 2‑1401 framework and forfeiture rules.
- Confidentiality and statutory findings: the court declined to invalidate the order on the ground the limited waiver of section 607.6 or the parenting‑time restriction lacked express statutory findings; the agreement’s consensual nature and therapeutic framework distinguished it from a judicial imposition that would require explicit fact findings.

5. Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Consent judgments restricting parenting time should be drafted with care: if court-ordered limits are sought, include (or obtain) explicit statutory findings where appropriate to avoid later attacks.
- Preserve objections early: challenge problematic provisions in the same proceedings (motions to reconsider) or on direct appeal; a later section 2‑1401 voidness attack is risky where the record shows informed, counseled consent.
- When negotiating releases/waivers of counseling confidentiality, specify scope and compliance with statutory confidentiality regimes; obtain judicial acceptance on the record to reduce collateral‑attack risk.
- Counsel should be alert to procedural posture: voidness challenges escape some 2‑1401 requirements, but they succeed only when a true jurisdictional or fundamental illegality is shown.