Background
Alice D. was born in January 2023. In February 2023, the State filed a petition for wardship alleging the child was neglected. Christopher Mills was initially identified as a possible father and ordered to undergo DNA testing; results excluded him (0% probability). The State then sought to serve “any and all unknown fathers” by publication in the local newspaper. The notice was published in May 2023 without evidence of efforts to identify the actual father.
In August 2024, the State filed a motion to terminate parental rights. A second publication notice was served on “unknown fathers” in October 2024. In November 2024, the circuit court entered a default judgment terminating the parental rights of “any and all unknown fathers” for failing to appear. The mother later surrendered her parental rights in February 2025.
In April 2025, Michael J. came forward claiming he was the biological father, stating the mother had deceived him by naming Mills as the father. DNA testing in September 2025 confirmed Father’s paternity at 99.99% probability. Father moved to vacate the default termination order, but the circuit court denied the motion in February 2026. Father appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District reversed, holding that the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over Father and therefore the default termination order was void ab initio. The court concluded the State failed to conduct an adequate “diligent inquiry” before attempting service by publication, as required by section 2-16(2) of the Juvenile Court Act.
The court established that a diligent inquiry requires “that kind of search or investigation which a diligent person, intent on ascertaining a fact, would usually and ordinarily make.” Merely asking the mother to identify possible fathers is insufficient. The State must follow available leads, including reviewing agency and court files for identifying information, consulting with known relatives, and checking the Putative Father Registry. Here, the record showed no evidence of these steps. Notably, the mother’s parents—who were foster parents for the minor and other children—were never asked if they knew of possible fathers.
The court rejected the circuit court’s reliance on In re A.S.B. (1997) to the extent it suggested asking the mother alone satisfies the diligent inquiry requirement, finding that decision at odds with modern case law requiring thorough, multi-step investigation. The court further held that because the termination order was void due to lack of personal jurisdiction, Father was not required to prove a “meritorious defense” or “due diligence” to vacate it—the void nature of the order itself negates those requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Key Takeaways
- Service by publication on unknown fathers in parental rights termination proceedings requires a diligent, multi-pronged inquiry into identity before the court may exercise jurisdiction
- Passive reliance on the mother’s statements regarding the father’s identity is insufficient; the State must actively follow available leads, consult relatives with access to information, and check available registries
- Courts lack personal jurisdiction if service by publication is not supported by adequate diligent inquiry, rendering the termination order void and subject to vacation without proof of meritorious defense or due diligence
- The Putative Father Registry and interviews with known relatives (even if they are relatives of the mother rather than the father) are necessary components of a lawful diligent search
Why It Matters
This decision strengthens procedural protections for biological fathers in juvenile termination proceedings, particularly those unknowingly excluded from notice. By requiring meaningful diligent inquiry before service by publication, the court prevents default judgments based on constructive notice when the State has not genuinely attempted to identify respondents. This is critical given the fundamental liberty interests at stake in parental rights termination.
The ruling also clarifies that DCFS’s Administrative Procedure No. 22 (establishing specific diligent search protocols) reflects the statutory floor, not a ceiling, for inquiry efforts. For practitioners, the decision underscores that meager affidavits stating only that a respondent “cannot be found” without detailing specific investigative steps will not support jurisdiction. The opinion will likely reshape how states and child welfare agencies conduct searches for unknown or missing parents in termination actions.