There were allegations of abuse by their father, Jaime D. A 5-year-old boy, J.D., and his 2 sisters were placed in the temporary custody of DCFS. A DNA test then showed that Jaime D. was not the boy’s father.
The mother testified that a different man, Alejandro A., was the boy’s father. Jaime D. had signed a Voluntary Acknowledgement of Parentage (VAP). Based on this, the court had named him as the boy’s father.
The boy, through the public guardian, filed a petition to allow Alejandro A. to remain a party. And to reserve his right to adjudicate him at a later time as his father. If Alejandro A. appeared later and had standing, the court might reconsider the parentage finding. Eventually, the children returned to their mother.
It is now four years later. The State again filed a petition for adjudication of wardship and temporary custody of the children. One of J.D.’s sisters alleged sexual abuse by her mother’s boyfriend. The other sister alleged sexual abuse by Jaime D., her father.
Alejandro appeared and the trial court ordered him to take a DNA test. This established him as J.D.’s biological father.
The trial court entered another parentage order naming Jaime D. as J.D.’s father. The trial court held that the statute of limitations barred Alejandro, but not J.D., from seeking an adjudication of parentage. The boy, through his Guardian, appealed.
The appellate court reversed. It stated that the statute of limitations did not preclude J.D. from requesting that Alejandro be named as his father.
In re J.D., 2018 IL App (1st) 180580 (December 7, 2018).
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!