Father motion in Illinois

2016See Eychaner, 202 Ill. 2d at 280-81 ; Lesher, 407 Ill.

2016See Eychaner, 202 Ill. 2d at 280-81 ; Lesher, 407 Ill.

2026C., 2011 IL 111083 , and In re C.K., 2023 IL App (5th) 230012 , were less relevant than In re A.S.B. because they dealt with the question of “what constitutes a ‘diligent search’ when the identity of the father is known.” The circuit court then explained that in both this case and In re A.S.B., “DNA testing was conducted on one possible putative father, and DCFS took active steps to develop more possible fathers through discussions with the mother.” Although the circuit court found that the State erred in failing to provide a more detailed affidavit, it concluded that, as in In re A.S.B., a “d

2026C., 2011 IL 111083 , and In re C.K., 2023 IL App (5th) 230012 , were less relevant than In re A.S.B. because they dealt with the question of “what constitutes a ‘diligent search’ when the identity of the father is known.” The circuit court then explained that in both this case and In re A.S.B., “DNA testing was conducted on one possible putative father, and DCFS took active steps to develop more possible fathers through discussions with the mother.” Although the circuit court found that the State erred in failing to provide a more detailed affidavit, it concluded that, as in In re A.S.B., a “d

2026In addressing the question of the State’s compliance with the requirement that it perform a diligent inquiry prior to service by publication, the circuit court relied heavily on the decision of In re A.S.B., 293 Ill.

2026We “may take judicial notice of information that the Illinois Department of Corrections provides on its website.” People v. Goods, 2016 IL App (1st) 140511, ¶ 56 . ¶ 51 When making oral pronouncements as to unfitness, the circuit court summarized the testimony that was presented regarding Father.

2026Father requests that we vacate the January 8, 2026, written decision terminating Father’s parental rights and remand this case for further proceedings pursuant to the KIND Act. ¶ 51 “ ‘Parents have a fundamental due process right to the care, custody and control of their children, but that right is subject to termination.’ ” In re J.B., 2014 IL App (1st) 140773 , ¶ 42 (quoting In re A.W., 397 Ill.

2026CONCLUSION ¶ 43 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the circuit court’s order denying Father’s motion to vacate the default order terminating his parental rights and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision. ¶ 44 Reversed and remanded. 14 In re Alice D., 2026 IL App (5th) 260117 Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Effingham County, No. 23-JA- 1; the Hon.

2026Father requests that we vacate the January 8, 2026, written decision terminating Father’s parental rights and remand this case for further proceedings pursuant to the KIND Act. ¶ 51 “ ‘Parents have a fundamental due process right to the care, custody and control of their children, but that right is subject to termination.’ ” In re J.B., 2014 IL App (1st) 140773 , ¶ 42 (quoting In re A.W., 397 Ill.

2023“So long as a claim meets the requirements for justiciability, it will be sufficient to invoke the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, even if the claim is defectively stated.” McCormick v. Robertson, 2015 IL 118230 , ¶ 23. ¶ 74 Father’s claim does not merit this court’s consideration.

2022We, therefore, will not address the best-interests decision because “[a]n issue not clearly defined and sufficiently presented fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 341(h)(7) and is waived.” Bublitz v. Wilkins Buick, Mazda, Suzuki, Inc., 377 Ill.

1988As the G.L. court reasoned, the court obtained jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter after the original proper notice of the filing of the delinquency petition (see People v. R.S. (1984), 104 Ill.2d 1 , 470 N.E.2d 297 ) and that jurisdiction remained until the respondent was discharged by court order or expiration of term of probation or commitment. ( In re Thompson (1980), 79 Ill.2d 262 , 402 N.E.2d 609 ; In re Vaught (1981), 103 Ill.

1988As the G.L. court reasoned, the court obtained jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter after the original proper notice of the filing of the delinquency petition (see People v. R.S. (1984), 104 Ill.2d 1 , 470 N.E.2d 297 ) and that jurisdiction remained until the respondent was discharged by court order or expiration of term of probation or commitment. ( In re Thompson (1980), 79 Ill.2d 262 , 402 N.E.2d 609 ; In re Vaught (1981), 103 Ill.

1988As the G.L. court reasoned, the court obtained jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter after the original proper notice of the filing of the delinquency petition (see People v. R.S. (1984), 104 Ill.2d 1 , 470 N.E.2d 297 ) and that jurisdiction remained until the respondent was discharged by court order or expiration of term of probation or commitment. ( In re Thompson (1980), 79 Ill.2d 262 , 402 N.E.2d 609 ; In re Vaught (1981), 103 Ill.

1988As the G.L. court reasoned, the court obtained jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter after the original proper notice of the filing of the delinquency petition (see People v. R.S. (1984), 104 Ill.2d 1 , 470 N.E.2d 297 ) and that jurisdiction remained until the respondent was discharged by court order or expiration of term of probation or commitment. ( In re Thompson (1980), 79 Ill.2d 262 , 402 N.E.2d 609 ; In re Vaught (1981), 103 Ill.

1988As the G.L. court reasoned, the court obtained jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter after the original proper notice of the filing of the delinquency petition (see People v. R.S. (1984), 104 Ill.2d 1 , 470 N.E.2d 297 ) and that jurisdiction remained until the respondent was discharged by court order or expiration of term of probation or commitment. ( In re Thompson (1980), 79 Ill.2d 262 , 402 N.E.2d 609 ; In re Vaught (1981), 103 Ill.

1986App. 3d 467 , 299 N.E.2d 413 .) In Huckaby, the stipulated order purported to give the father that defense.

1986App.3d 467 , 299 N.E.2d 413 .) In Huckaby , the stipulated order purported to give the father that defense.

1971(Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer (1967), 86 Ill.App.2d 224 , 229 N.E.2d 144 ; Vysoky v. Vysoky (1967), 85 Ill.App.2d 306 , 230 N.E.2d 3 .) The young boy’s departures from his father’s home were prompted by the punishment he received, or upon the fear, real or unfounded, that he would be punished.

1971(Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer (1967), 86 Ill.App.2d 224 , 229 N.E.2d 144 ; Vysoky v. Vysoky (1967), 85 Ill.App.2d 306 , 230 N.E.2d 3 .) The young boy’s departures from his father’s home were prompted by the punishment he received, or upon the fear, real or unfounded, that he would be punished.

1971(Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer (1967), 86 Ill.App.2d 224 , 229 N.E.2d 144 ; Vysoky v. Vysoky (1967), 85 Ill.App.2d 306 , 230 N.E.2d 3 .) The young boy’s departures from his father’s home were prompted by the punishment he received, or upon the fear, real or unfounded, that he would be punished.

1971(Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer (1967), 86 Ill.App.2d 224 , 229 N.E.2d 144 ; Vysoky v. Vysoky (1967), 85 Ill.App.2d 306 , 230 N.E.2d 3 .) The young boy’s departures from his father’s home were prompted by the punishment he received, or upon the fear, real or unfounded, that he would be punished.

1956The Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful death actions upon the authority of our decision in Hazel v. Hoopeston-Danville Motor Bus Co. 310 Ill. 38 , and the action of the minor against the father on the rule of parental immunity suggested by the Appellate Court decision in Meece v. Holland Furnace Co. 269 Ill.

1956The Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful death actions upon the authority of our decision in Hazel v. Hoopeston-Danville Motor Bus Co. 310 Ill. 38 , and the action of the minor against the father on the rule of parental immunity suggested by the Appellate Court decision in Meece v. Holland Furnace Co. 269 Ill.