Case Update (26 May 2026): In re. ANB & AMB; subject matter jurisdiction over parentage and custody case on appeal
The parties resided together in Illinois, at which time the Respondent Mother gave birth to two children, who resided with the parties. There was no formal acknowledgment of paternity, and paternity had not been legally established at the time. The parties and children resided together in Illinois from about October 2021 through February 6, 2024, at which time, after an alleged incident of domestic abuse, the Respondent Mother removed the children from Illinois and took them to Russia, where she and the children were dual national citizens. On or about July 26, 2024, she obtained an emergency order of protection against the Petitioner “Father”, although that did not cover the minors as protected parties. On August 22, 2024, more than six months after the children departed Illinois for Russia, the Petitioner “Father” filed a petition to establish parentage and to allocate parenting time and responsibility. The Respondent Mother sought to dismiss this suit, arguing that the children had been residing in Russia for over six months with her parents at the time the suit was filed. The Petitioner “Father” argued that the children were only in Russia through the Mother’s unilateral action and without his consent. Making additional other arguments, the Mother appealed in January 2026, after default judgments, contempt orders, and orders establishing the Father’s parentage and allocating parental responsibility. Among her arguments, she persisted in arguing that the trial court never had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The Court of Appeals of Illinois (2nd Dist.) concluded that the Mother had failed to produce the required record on appeal, so it was left to only guess as to why the trial court did what it did, and because of the lack of a record, it was required to affirm the trial court. In doing so, it, nonetheless, analyzed the jurisdictional argument as follows. The primary jurisdictional basis for subject matter jurisdiction over a custody case is a child’s “home state.” If Illinois were the child’s home state at the time of the Father’s filing, it would be the proper place to pursue custody and parentage. A home state is where a child has resided with a parent or a person acting as a parent for six months immediately before the court filing. This does not account for temporary absences from that home state. Temporary absence is not defined in the UCCJEA, but was previously defined in the predecessor act - the UCCJA - as accounting for any parental agreement and their intent on the duration of the child’s absence. The Father apparently put forth evidence that he was not in agreement with the children’s relocation, and the Mother had apparently offered to return the children in August 2024 (the month in which he filed his suit). Citing to Illinois caselaw, the Court of Appeals said, “While the child may have resided in the new state for a period of six months or longer, the six-month period within which the parent in the original state could file a custody action within that state would not begin to run until that parent had reason to recognize the permanency of the out-of-state absence.” Foreign countries are treated as sister-states, but for under rare circumstances. It should be noted that the UCCJEA also states that “the physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child-custody determination.”
Regardless, due to the lack of a record on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, as it could not adequately determine what arguments were made at trial to assess whether they should be reversed/vacated.
