{ "id": 910250, "name": "In re MARRIAGE OF ROGER C. ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellee, and L. COLLEEN ADAMS, Respondent and Petitioner-Appellee (Timothy Arnold, Respondent-Appellant; Paul Robert Ziegler, Respondent)", "name_abbreviation": "In re Marriage Adams", "decision_date": "1998-06-18", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201497\u20140418", "first_page": "156", "last_page": "162", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "297 Ill. App. 3d 156" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "667 N.E.2d 688", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "695" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 Ill. App. 3d 869", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 150258 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "879" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/281/0869-01" ] }, { "cite": "418 N.E.2d 470", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "471" }, { "page": "471" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 Ill. App. 3d 84", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3124795 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "85" }, { "page": "85-86" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/94/0084-01" ] }, { "cite": "472 N.E.2d 431", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "433" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 Ill. 2d 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3146255 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "267" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/104/0261-01" ] }, { "cite": "344 N.E.2d 447", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "454-55" }, { "page": "455" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5426675 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "87" }, { "page": "88" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/63/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "638 N.E.2d 340", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "344" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "265 Ill. App. 3d 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 872448 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "212" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/265/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "620 N.E.2d 572", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "581-82", "parenthetical": "Cook, J., dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "250 Ill. App. 3d 981", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2919041 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "994-95", "parenthetical": "Cook, J., dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/250/0981-01" ] }, { "cite": "531 N.E.2d 97", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "100" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "176 Ill. App. 3d 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3588183 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/176/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "617 N.E.2d 873", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "876" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "247 Ill. App. 3d 745", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2928167 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "750" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/247/0745-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 676, "char_count": 14522, "ocr_confidence": 0.796, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.45175759174425e-08, "percentile": 0.3979969488568639 }, "sha256": "191a9d8139436ac607b914fdc0951b34187b56d50a60f2bedc61259161225a36", "simhash": "1:23864008f327d4f7", "word_count": 2413 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:41:46.412422+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re MARRIAGE OF ROGER C. ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellee, and L. COLLEEN ADAMS, Respondent and Petitioner-Appellee (Timothy Arnold, Respondent-Appellant; Paul Robert Ziegler, Respondent)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE KNECHT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn April 26, 1996, petitioner Roger C. Adams filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the circuit court of Livingston County. In his petition, Roger alleged he was not the father of the two children, A.A. and K.A., born during his marriage to respondent L. Colleen Adams (Colleen). On July 9, 1996, Colleen filed two petitions to establish paternity. One petition alleged Timothy Arnold was the biological father of A.A.; the second alleged Paul Robert Ziegler was the biological father of K.A. Ziegler agreed to provide financial support for K.A. and is not a party to this appeal. In October 1996, the trial court consolidated the cases.\nAfter a hearing, the trial court found no parent and child relationship between A.A. and Roger. The trial court, however, found a parent and child relationship existed between Arnold and A.A. and ordered Arnold to provide financial support for A.A. Arnold appeals, arguing the trial court erred by (1) failing to find Roger was estopped from ceasing to act as A.A.\u2019s father; (2) determining Colleen\u2019s petition and the later blood tests were proper as the orders were barred by the expiration of the limitations period; and (3) failing to find Roger should remain A.A.\u2019s father because of A.A.\u2019s wishes and best interests. We affirm.\nI. BACKGROUND\nRoger and Colleen were married in October 1982. Roger had a vasectomy and was incapable of fathering children. Roger and Colleen considered artificial insemination as a means to have children. Colleen later informed Roger she would be artificially inseminated. Colleen instead had an extramarital affair with Arnold, because she decided artificial insemination was too costly. A.A. was born on August 22, 1985.\nColleen told Roger A.A. was conceived through artificial insemination at Carle Clinic in Champaign, Illinois. She also informed Roger she paid the medical bills with a credit card. Roger testified he had no reason to believe Colleen lied about A.A.\u2019s conception. Colleen became pregnant again in 1990. She gave birth to K.A. on October 10, 1990, as a result of an extramarital affair with Ziegler. Colleen also lied to Roger about K.A.\u2019s conception.\nRoger learned of one of Colleen\u2019s extramarital affairs in 1993 or 1994. He did not learn of the affairs with Ziegler and Arnold until December 1995. In March 1996, Colleen admitted to Roger A.A. was not conceived through artificial insemination but through an extramarital affair with Arnold. In April 1996, Roger filed a petition for the dissolution of his marriage, Livingston County case No. 96\u2014 D \u2014 73, in which he alleged he was not the father of A.A. and K.A. On July 9, 1996, Colleen filed petitions against Arnold and Ziegler to establish their paternity of A.A. and K.A., respectively, case Nos. 96\u2014 F \u2014 76 and 96 \u2014 F\u201477.\nArnold filed a section 2 \u2014 619 motion to dismiss (735 ILCS 5/2\u2014 619 (West 1996)), arguing the petition was barred because the relevant limitations period expired. The trial court concluded Colleen could bring the cause of action at that time and denied the motion. The causes were consolidated in October 1996.\nOn January 9, 1997, the trial court ordered Arnold, Colleen, and A.A. to submit to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing for the determination of inherited characteristics. The tests established a 99.99% probability Arnold was A.A.\u2019s biological father. At a hearing on April 1, 1997, Arnold stipulated he was the biological father of A.A. The trial court concluded no parent-child relationship existed between Roger and A.A. and ordered Arnold to provide financial support for A.A. Arnold appeals.\nII. ESTOPPEL\nArnold argues Roger should have been estopped from claiming he was not A.A.\u2019s father. Arnold states Roger had always known he was not A.A.\u2019s biological father. Arnold apparently maintains the fact A.A. was not a product of artificial insemination is inconsequential, because Roger was A.A.\u2019s father for 10 years despite knowing A.A. was not his biological son. Arnold cites Cessna v. Montgomery, 63 Ill. 2d 71, 344 N.E.2d 447 (1976), overruled on other grounds in Dornfeld v. Julian, 104 Ill. 2d 261, 267, 472 N.E.2d 431, 433 (1984), and People ex rel. Andrews v. Andrews, 94 Ill. App. 3d 84, 418 N.E.2d 470 (1981), and maintains \u201ca man may not assume the role of father and then discard it at his whim.\u201d\nBoth Cessna and Andrews involve putative fathers who provided support for their children until after the then two-year limitations period for proving the existence of a parent-child relationship expired. Cessna, 63 Ill. 2d at 87, 344 N.E.2d at 454-55; Andrews, 94 Ill. App. 3d at 85, 418 N.E.2d at 471. The Cessna court held a defendant may be estopped from asserting the expiration of the two-year limitations period as a defense in a paternity suit. To determine whether estoppel applies, the trial court must determine whether the defendant\u2019s actions within the time period \u201csignificantly discouraged plaintiff from bringing suit until after the limitation period expired.\u201d Cessna, 63 Ill. 2d at 88, 344 N.E.2d at 455. The Andrews court, citing Cessna, held because the father\u2019s actions lulled the mother into believing a paternity suit was unnecessary, the father was estopped from using the limitations period\u2019s expiration as a defense. Andrews, 94 Ill. App. 3d at 85-86, 418 N.E.2d at 471.\nThis case is clearly distinguishable. Roger was not A.A.\u2019s father, and his conduct did not prevent a timely filed paternity suit. Apparently, Arnold relies on these cases to show more generally that a defendant in a paternity suit may be estopped from asserting a lack of paternity based upon his conduct and to argue Roger should be estopped from asserting his lack of paternity. We disagree with Arnold\u2019s assertion Roger should be estopped from arguing his lack of parentage in the dissolution of marriage case. Arnold emphasizes Roger, knowing A.A. was not his biological child, raised him as his son for 10 years. Despite Arnold\u2019s apparent contentions the means of the conception of A.A. is inconsequential, we note there is a difference between artificial insemination and insemination by another man. In Illinois, when a man donates semen for artificial insemination of a woman not his wife, that man is treated as if he was not the biological father of the conceived child. 750 ILCS 40/3(a) (West 1994). A child born as a result of artificial insemination is considered the natural child of the husband and wife who requested and consented to the procedure. 750 ILCS 40/2 (West 1994). It is one thing to accept and raise a \u201cfatherless\u201d child that legally becomes the husband\u2019s own, and quite another to provide financial and emotional support to a child with a biological father capable of providing that support.\nRoger believed Colleen, and the record does not establish he should have done otherwise prior to learning of the affairs in December 1995. Roger learned of the circumstances surrounding A.A.\u2019s conception in early 1996. He petitioned for the dissolution of his marriage shortly after obtaining that knowledge. We find the trial court properly concluded Roger was not estopped from asserting his lack of paternity of A. A.\nIII. LIMITATIONS PERIOD\nArnold also argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss and in later ordering blood tests because the limitations period expired, barring Colleen\u2019s petition. Arnold maintains although the petition sets out to establish the existence of a parent-child relationship, it also implicitly proves the \u201cnonexistence\u201d of a parent-child relationship between Roger and A.A. Arnold contends section 8(a)(3) of the Parentage Act of 1984 (Act) (750 ILCS 45/8(a)(3) (West 1996)) thus bars the petition. The trial court disagreed with Arnold\u2019s arguments. It found the applicable limitations period was that set forth in subsection (a)(1).\nThis court reviews rulings on section 2 \u2014 619 motions to dismiss de novo. Kemp-Golden v. Department of Children & Family Services, 281 Ill. App. 3d 869, 879, 667 N.E.2d 688, 695 (1996). Section 8(a) of the Act provides the following, in relevant part:\n\u201c(a)(1) An action brought by or on behalf of a child *** shall be barred if brought later than 2 years after the child reaches the age of majority ***.\nExcept as otherwise provided in this Section, an action brought by a party alleging that he or she is the child\u2019s natural parent shall be barred if brought later than 2 years after the child reaches the age of majority. ***\n(2) Failure to bring an action within 2 years shall not bar any party from asserting a defense in any action to declare the nonexistence of the parent and child relationship.\n(3) An action to declare the non-existence of the parent and child relationship shall be barred if brought later than 2 years after the petitioner obtains knowledge of relevant facts.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 750 ILCS 45/8(a) (West 1996).\nSection 8(a)(3) is inapplicable to these facts. Colleen filed an action to prove the existence of a parent and child relationship. Implicit in every petition to prove the existence of that relationship under section 8(a)(1) is proof of the nonexistence of the relationship to everyone else. Arnold\u2019s interpretation would thus subject all paternity petitions to the limitations period provided in section 8(a)(3), rendering the limitations period in section 8(a)(1) meaningless. Clearly, the legislature could not have intended such a result. The trial court did not err in finding the limitations period in section 8(a)(3) did not apply. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss and in ordering the paternity test.\nIV A.A.\u2019S WISHES\nArnold next maintains the trial court erred in failing to act according to A.A.\u2019s expressed wish to retain the parent and child relationship with Roger. Arnold also argues the best interests of A.A. require that Roger continue to support A.A. and act as his father. Arnold cites no authority to show a court has the authority to permit the wishes and best interests of a child to create a parent-child relationship where none legally exists. Arnold apparently treats this case as a decision between who would be the best father for A.A. Although the cases were consolidated, it is clear the court first addressed whether Roger was A.A.\u2019s father. When it determined Roger was neither A.A.\u2019s father nor responsible for his support, the trial court then considered the question of whether Arnold was A.A.\u2019s father. The trial court\u2019s consideration of these cases appears consistent with section 7(b) of the Act, which provides once the presumption of fatherhood is rebutted, the paternity of another man may be established in the same case. 750 ILCS 45/7(b) (West 1994).\nAffirmed.\nGARMAN, EJ., concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE KNECHT" }, { "text": "JUSTICE COOK,\nspecially concurring:\nThe two-year statute of limitations on actions to declare the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship (750 ILCS 45/8(a)(3) (West 1996)) serves an important purpose. It is wrong to make a child a part of a family unit and pass over substantial concerns regarding the child\u2019s paternity only to raise them years later in an attempt to avoid child support. In re Marriage of O\u2019Brien, 247 Ill. App. 3d 745, 750, 617 N.E.2d 873, 876 (1993). The two-year statute prevents such attempts.\nIt is somewhat surprising that Roger, who had developed a father-child relationship with A.A. over a 10-year period, would abandon that relationship because of his (legitimate) concern with the conduct of Colleen. Nevertheless, that is his right, if he brings his nonexistence of paternity action within \u201c2 years after [he], obtains knowledge of relevant facts.\u201d 750 ILCS 45/8(a)(3) (West 1996). I agree that Roger lacked knowledge of \u201crelevant facts\u201d in this unusual case, even though he knew at all times that he was not the father of A.A. Even if it were possible to show Roger\u2019s earlier knowledge of those relevant facts, the guardian ad litem for the children has apparently concluded that it is not worth doing so, and concluded that it is best that Roger be out of the picture.\nI agree with Arnold that a mother cannot file a paternity action against one man as a device to establish the nonpaternity of the presumed father, but that is not the situation we have here. Before Colleen filed her paternity action against Arnold, Roger had already filed a nonexistence action, his petition for dissolution of marriage in which he denied paternity. It is true that the two-year statute of limitations for nonexistence of paternity should not be evaded by devices such as attempting to bring an existence action \u201con behalf of a child.\u201d 750 ILCS 45/8(a)(1) (West 1996). Courts have rejected the idea that an action that \u201c[sought] to deprive the child of the only father he has known\u201d could be considered brought on behalf of the child. In re Marriage of Ingram, 176 Ill. App. 3d 413, 418, 531 N.E.2d 97, 100 (1988); see In re A.K., 250 Ill. App. 3d 981, 994-95, 620 N.E.2d 572, 581-82 (1993) (Cook, J., dissenting); see also 750 ILCS 45/7(b) (West 1996) (after presumptions of paternity rebutted, paternity of another may be shown in the same action). The paternity action against Arnold here did not seek to deprive A.A. of the only father he had known; Roger\u2019s actions in the dissolution case had already done that.\nArnold is not a proper party to an action questioning Roger\u2019s paternity. In re Marriage of Allen, 265 Ill. App. 3d 208, 212, 638 N.E.2d 340, 344 (1994). It may nevertheless be useful to allow Arnold to question whether the relationship between A.A. and Roger could be attacked. Someone should certainly address that issue. It is difficult, however, to give much weight to Arnold\u2019s argument when it is not based on concern for the welfare of A.A., but instead is made to advance Arnold\u2019s argument that he should not have to pay child support for A.A. The argument would be much more convincing if it were made by the guardian ad litem.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "JUSTICE COOK," } ], "attorneys": [ "Donald R. McClarey, of Strufe & McClarey, of Dwight, for appellant.", "L. Colleen Adams, of Chenoa, appellee pro se.", "C. Thomas Blakeman and Jennifer H. Bauknecht, both of Strong, Blake-man & Schrock, Ltd., of Pontiac, for appellee Roger C. Adams.", "' Thomas E. Herr, of Herr & Herr, of Pontiac, guardian ad litem." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re MARRIAGE OF ROGER C. ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellee, and L. COLLEEN ADAMS, Respondent and Petitioner-Appellee (Timothy Arnold, Respondent-Appellant; Paul Robert Ziegler, Respondent).\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201497\u20140418\nOpinion filed June 18, 1998.\nCOOK, J., specially concurring.\nDonald R. McClarey, of Strufe & McClarey, of Dwight, for appellant.\nL. Colleen Adams, of Chenoa, appellee pro se.\nC. Thomas Blakeman and Jennifer H. Bauknecht, both of Strong, Blake-man & Schrock, Ltd., of Pontiac, for appellee Roger C. Adams.\n' Thomas E. Herr, of Herr & Herr, of Pontiac, guardian ad litem." }, "file_name": "0156-01", "first_page_order": 174, "last_page_order": 180 }