In re Parentage of J.W., 2013 IL 114817

- Case citation and parties
In re Parentage of J.W., 2013 IL 114817 (Ill. May 23, 2013). Steve Taylor (appellee/petitioner) v. Amy Wills‑Merrill; Jason Wills (interested party).

- Key legal issues
Whether, after a judicial determination of biological parentage under the Illinois Parentage Act (750 ILCS 45/14(a)(1)), a biological (noncustodial) parent seeking visitation must meet the best‑interests standard in section 602 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/602) or instead is entitled to the rebuttable presumption of reasonable visitation set out in section 607(a) (750 ILCS 5/607(a)).

- Holding / outcome
The Illinois Supreme Court held that a visitation request under Parentage Act §14(a)(1) is evaluated under the Marriage Act’s best‑interests standard (§602). The initial burden is on the noncustodial biological parent to show that visitation will be in the child’s best interests. The appellate court’s contrary decision applying §607(a)’s presumption was reversed; the trial court’s denial of contact was affirmed.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The Court reasoned that once parentage is established, visitation issues are governed by the Marriage Act. Section 602—which lists the statutory factors for evaluating the child’s best interests—is the proper rubric to determine whether visitation should be granted in parentage cases. Section 607(a)’s rebuttable presumption was designed for post‑dissolution custody/visitation contexts and would be inappropriate in parentage proceedings because a judicial finding of parentage often creates a new parental status that may disrupt existing custodial arrangements and the child’s stability. Applying §607(a) would automatically favor a newly declared biological parent and undermine the court’s obligation to protect the child’s welfare where long‑standing family arrangements and bonds exist. The Court emphasized individualized, fact‑driven analysis (including developmental and community context) rather than a prophylactic presumption.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- In parentage actions seeking visitation, prepare to meet the §602 best‑interests standard; do not rely on §607(a)’s presumption.
- Develop comprehensive evidence addressing the §602 factors (bonds, continuity, emotional needs, stability, age/maturity, harm risk, community/school impact). Use qualified evaluators, GALs, and targeted testimony about developmental impact and transition plans.
- If representing the custodial parent, emphasize child stability, established bonds, and potential disruption from a new parental figure; seek no‑contact or gradual‑integration plans when warranted.
- Litigators for biological parents should present phased visitation proposals and therapeutic support to mitigate disruption and demonstrate benefits.
- Anticipate appellate scrutiny: courts will examine whether the best‑interests factors were applied and supported by evidence, not whether a statutory presumption was rebutted.