Find Legal Information

THIRD DIVISION
November 29, 2000

BACKGROUND

This case involves an interlocutory appeal, brought by Larry Skellion(respondent), from an order entered in the circuit court of Cook County. MaryKlak, a 17-year-old minor (petitioner), petitioned the circuit court to declare aparent-child relationship between herself and respondent pursuant to the IllinoisParentage Act of 1984 (the Act) (750 ILCS 45/1 et seq.) (West 1998).⁽¹⁾ Thecircuit court found that petitioner was entitled to pursue this legal proceedingin her own name without a parent or other guardian. The question of law presentedin this appeal, as stated by the circuit court in its December 13, 1999, order is:"Whether a child under the age of 18 may file a Petition to Determine theExistence of a Parent and Child Relationship on her or his own behalf withoutguardian, next best friend, etc." For the reasons that follow, we answer thecircuit court's certified question in the negative.

The following facts are relevant to this appeal. Respondent and petitioner'sbiological mother, Jacqueline Klak, had an ongoing sexual relationship from 1980to April of 1982. Petitioner was born on July 9, 1982, in Cook County, Illinois. On August 3, 1999, petitioner filed a petition, in her name, to establish theexistence of a father-child relationship between herself and respondent. Additionally, petitioner sought "funds or resources to provide for her reasonableneeds, including support, maintenance, and educational expenses." Petitioner was17 years old when she filed her action against respondent. Petitioner isrepresented by counsel and no guardian ad litem has been appointed. On September16, 1999, respondent filed his motion for involuntary dismissal pursuant tosection 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming that petitioner is a minorand does not have the legal capacity to initiate a civil cause of action in herown name. 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 1998). On November 29, 1999, respondent'smotion was denied, and it was ordered that petitioner was entitled to proceed onher own behalf without a parent or other guardian. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule308 (155 Ill. 2d R. 308), this court granted respondent leave to appeal. Thisappeal followed.

ANALYSIS

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

On interlocutory appeal, the scope of review is limited to the question of lawcertified by the circuit court. Teverbaugh v. Moore, 311 Ill. App. 3d 1, 3, 724N.E.2d 225 (2000), citing Kincaid v. Smith, 252 Ill. App. 3d 618, 623, 625 N.E.2d750 (1993); In re Detention of Anders, 304 Ill. App. 3d 117, 120, 710 N.E.2d 475(1999). Our review is de novo. Weatherman v. Gary-Wheaton Bank of Fox Valley,N.A., 186 Ill. 2d 472, 480, 713 N.E.2d 543 (1999).

II. CERTIFIED QUESTION

In the instant appeal, the legal question presented raises an issue of firstimpression. Our research has uncovered no case in which an unemancipated childhas filed a parentage action on her own behalf without a parent or otherguardian.⁽²⁾ The question, therefore, which concerns us is whether a child underthe age of 18 may file a petition to determine the existence of a parent and childrelationship on her or his own behalf without a guardian or next friend.

Respondent contends that the circuit court erred in failing to dismisspetitioner's action because she is a minor and cannot initiate or pursue a civilaction in her own name. Respondent also contends that, as a minor, petitionermust bring the action by a guardian or next friend. Petitioner contends that theAct allows a minor child to bring a paternity suit on her own behalf without aparent or other guardian. We disagree.

Initially, we note that a minor does not have the legal capacity to initiate,pursue or maintain legal action in her own name. Doe v. Montessori School, 287Ill. App. 3d 289, 298, 687 N.E.2d 1082 (1997); Stevenson v. Hawthorne ElementarySchool, East St. Louis School District No. 189, 144 Ill. 2d 294, 300, 579 N.E.2d852 (1991). A legal action may be maintained on behalf of a minor child by herparent or legal guardian. Stevenson, 144 Ill. 2d at 300, citing City of Danvillev. Clark, 63 Ill. 2d 408, 411, 348 N.E.2d 844 (1976). If no parent or otherguardian is available, a guardian ad litem may be appointed to represent theinterests of the minor child. Stevenson, 144 Ill. 2d at 300. A minor child is aperson who has not attained the age of 18 years. See 755 ILCS 5/11-1 (West 1998).

When interpreting a statute, the primary function is to ascertain and give effectto the true intent and meaning of the drafters. People ex rel. Department ofLabor v. Soccer Enterprises, Inc., 302 Ill. App. 3d 481, 707 N.E.2d 108 (1998);Davis v. Human Rights Comm'n., 286 Ill. App. 3d 508, 676 N.E.2d 315 (1997). Statutes in derogation of the common law will be strictly construed. McMinn v.Cavanaugh, 177 Ill. App. 3d 353, 356, 532 N.E.2d 343 (1988). Common law will notbe deemed abrogated by a statute unless it clearly appears that such was thelegislative intent. McMinn, 177 Ill. App. 3d at 356; Cherney v. Soldinger, 299Ill. App. 3d 1066, 1072, 702 N.E.2d 231 (1998).

Section 7 of the Act outlines the parties who may bring an action to determine afather-child relationship. Section 7 provides in relevant part:

"Determination of Father and Child Relationship; Who May Bring the Action;Parties.

(a) An action to determine the existence of the father and child relationship ***may be brought by the child; the mother; a pregnant woman; any person or publicagency who has custody of, or is providing or has provided financial support to,the child; *** or a man presumed or alleging himself to be the father of the childor expected child." (Emphasis added.) 750 ILCS 45/7(a) (West 1998).

Having set out the relevant case and statutory law, we interpret the statutorylanguage of the Act in accordance with the well-established principles of commonlaw. There is nothing in the Act which indicates that the legislature intended tochange the settled common law rule that minors are unable to initiate or pursuecivil litigation in their own name although they may be a party to such a suit. Section 7 of the Act states that an action "may be brought by the child" 750 ILCS45/7 (a) (West 1998). In keeping with common law principles, we interpret theword "child" in it's statutory context to mean "adult offspring" or "offspringhaving reached the age of majority" as opposed to a minor child. In the instantcase, petitioner was 17 when she filed a claim against respondent in her own name. Because petitioner was a minor she was not entitled to proceed with suchlitigation on her own behalf. As a minor child, petitioner was required to bringthis action by a guardian, guardian ad litem or next friend regardless of the factthat petitioner was represented by counsel.

We also note that each party filing a petition under the Act is bound by adifferent statute of limitations period. Section 8 of the Act provides therelevant periods of limitation for those parties delineated in section 7. Section8 in pertinent part states:

"Statute of limitations.

(a)(1) An action brought by or on behalf of a child *** shall be barred if broughtlater than 2 years after the child reaches the age of majority; however, if theaction on behalf of the child is brought by a public agency,*** it shall be barred2 years after the agency has ceased to provide assistance to the child.

(3) An action to declare the non-existence of the parent and child relationshipbrought under subsection (b) of Section 7 of this Act shall be barred if broughtlater than 2 years after the petitioner obtains knowledge of relevant facts." 750ILCS 45/8(a)(1), (a) (3) (West 1998).

Relying on the language set forth in section 8 of the Act, we conclude that theAct allows an offspring who has reached the age of majority to bring an actionwithin two years after she attains the age of 18 years. In this case, petitionerhas until July 9, 2002, when she reaches the age of 20 or "2 years after the childreaches the age of majority" to file her claim against respondent. 750 ILCS45/8(a)(1),(West 1998).

In sum, we find that the common law and section 7 of the Act do not allow a minorchild to initiate a legal proceeding in her own name to establish a parent-childrelationship. Instead, a minor child must appear by a guardian, guardian adlitem, parent, next friend or custodian. Alternatively, an offspring who hasreached the age of majority may bring the action within two years after she hasattained the age of 18 years. See 750 ILCS 45/8(a)(1) (West 1998). We believethat if the legislature intended for minor children to pursue legal action intheir own name, without a parent or other guardian under this statute, it wouldhave so stated.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is reversed andremanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

HOFFMAN, P.J., and SOUTH, J., concur.

2. ² Petitioner has retained counsel and is represented by an attorney in thisproceeding.