In re Parentage of Miller, 2023 IL App (1st) 210774

- Case citation and parties
In re Parentage of Miller, 2023 IL App (1st) 210774. Petitioner-Appellant: Daryl Miller. Respondent-Appellee: George Guy (aka Buddy Guy).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the Parentage Act of 2015 provision allowing an adult child to bring a parentage action “at any time” (750 ILCS 46/607) (and related provisions) is unconstitutional as applied to a putative father whose opportunity to sue under earlier statutes had long expired.
2. Whether the lapse of earlier statutory limitations created a constitutionally protected property interest such that reinstating or allowing a parentage action would violate due process.
3. Related procedural issues: timeliness/waiver of affirmative defenses and compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 19 (notice to the Attorney General when raising a statutory constitutional challenge).

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded. The trial court’s as-applied due-process ruling invalidating the relevant Parentage Act provision as applied to Guy was rejected.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court treated the facts alleged in Miller’s pro se petition as true on a 2‑619 review and considered the sequence of prior parentage statutes (the 1958 Act, the 1984 Act, and the 2015 Act). The opinion emphasized that the mere extinguishment of a potential cause of action (i.e., the expiration of an earlier limitations window) does not, without more, create a vested property interest protected by the Illinois due process clause. Citing Illinois precedent distinguishing statutory procedural limits from property rights, the court concluded that Guy failed to identify a protected property (or liberty) interest that would make application of the 2015 Act an unconstitutional taking or deprivation without due process. The court also addressed procedural obligations (Rule 19) and the record posture but ultimately found no basis to allow an as-applied constitutional invalidation.

- Practice implications for family law practitioners
- Under the Parentage Act of 2015 an adult child may commence a parentage proceeding; courts will not lightly find that this retroactive availability violates due process absent a clearly vested property interest.
- Defendants who intend to assert statutory time-bar or related affirmative defenses should plead them promptly; late attempts to raise such defenses risk procedural complications.
- When raising constitutional challenges to state statutes, strictly comply with Supreme Court Rule 19 (notice to the Attorney General) and be prepared to show a concrete vested right, not merely an extinguished procedural remedy.
- Petitioners seeking only a declaration of parentage (and record correction) — not monetary relief — may still invoke the 2015 Act; such petitions should be supported by chain-of-custody genetic proof where available.