next case are called the docket is gender number five case number one one one zero eight three and radar these are initial c had all minors versus darryl crockett to counsel for the  at the initial war to face and at the termination phase because the court failed to obtain personal jurisdiction of him its orders and void section two to ash sixteen sub two of the searches of a database that's contracted out to a separate company and the first state database search was done in october of two thousand and six subsequently they did searches i'm not sure exactly how they got his correct name but in december of two thousand and six i believe again in the spring of two thousand and seven they did a search using his correct name and at the time of the second search or the results of the second search turned up some addresses in chicago and the press is really mean there were addresses that i could have found out if it had done and a proper investigation a diligent investigation and said what the department did was it simply asked the mother of the children for the satirists she said oh asked the mother what his name and where he lived and she said that he lived in chicago but she did not have an actress for him so that was as far as the investigation w the investigator did not question the children they investigated did not question the hotline order was you paying for what he was he was paying through his social security disability insurance benefits defining the requirements for conducting a diligent search to locate parents of minors in the custody of the department third it states that if the respondents usual place of abode cannot be reasonably ascertain or if  constitution requires that avenues be exhausted i think that the the requirement for a diligent inquiry is really the key in this particular case because our position is that the inquiry was not was not their w it was done too late i'm not really sure what your issues i'm saying basically all of what the court just cited we have because we are sufficient to show that the court never acquired personal jurisdiction and so what we're arguing is that the affidavit because of its defects its facial it does not state what efforts were made if you look at the record the court would see that this comprehensive deal with search was not performed until after the affidavit was filed and fourteen zero one edition hearing that mr crockett had resided in her home from two thousand and three to two thousand and eight apart from periodic psychiatric hospitalization mr crockett had received a diagnosis of active disorder bipolar type in my sleep two thousand and three before then he had resided with the miners and their mother and he had actually worked as a paralegal before the onset of that the mother was trying to keep both the c f s and mr crockett in the dark about the juvenile court if she continued to receive nine hundred dollars in social security  benefits so why does that make d c offenses attempts not delusions if they're checking these databases and they're communicating with the mother and they're not finding him why is this or should i tell which i think the i think that  constitutionally a search requires a little bit more i think that it's not enough simply to ask one person the hotline reporter called and said that these kids were in really poor condition they get at at the hearing on the she does for you know one petition mr parker provided proof that she had in fact been receiving almost nine hundred dollars a month but the court is correct i mean listed him as being an inmate it shouldn't correctional facility that's correct ana was he was so he was never does the record explain it does how they came about it does not i don't know how we don't know how they got the wrong spelling worker testified that she had done a public aids check she had interviewed the mother she had spoken to the private agency case worker assigned to the case she had checked the telephone book she had called the illinois department of corrections should call the at the best interest hearing in the trauma nation there was one witness who testified and that was a caseworker who testified that she had received his address its discretion in denying the petitioner mr crockett's post judgment motion and here the answer is no the circuit court didn't do that because his motion was untimely it was filed more than one year ere are as as according to quoted earlier there are there are there are only two facial challenge is based on the record before up to determination order counsel is talking about the record after the termination order and the question inquiry we can't find him and and so we cannot make service and so to say and no effort of service was made because we don't have his address because it's just as i know it's redundant and that's really the same thing that the court excuse me the court held in t j which was it had the virtually identical language and what the court there said is this and and again there are a couple more problems though with this affidavit argument is the magic word document not just that that the courts to uphold that strict compliance has jurisdiction all its without any supporting authority and in fact really an ally in the cases we cite in our brief show that although this would perhaps this could this could be submission for reverse a lot of direct appeal on collateral attack it's not sufficient so there's a big difference and the search its contents would have been no different because we still couldn't find him we found the address in peoria we sent a brother there the better came back so we still didn't know where he was and in addition the only reason plaintiff is challenging crockett's parents lived where he used to live where his sister lived where he also used to live for seven years from two thousand through two thousand and seven and the workplace where mr crockett also said i still accept within twenty days you have to do service by publication and that's really what that first service by publication here was so i mean it's a statutory mandate that we try to service by publication but again  problem with the first affidavit is moot because that only resulted that only occurred before the adjudication order and that's the only order that that mr clarke is challenging for that yes i mean technically yes but again that technical requirement it you can infer from the from the language of the affidavit and if i may i'll read it the affidavit itself says respondent below cannot be found within th state so that process cannot be served upon him or her his i just cannot be a search changed and diligent inquiry the last known address is unknown and so so to have to in addition say and because we don't know his address because we can't find his place of abode no we haven't made any efforts to serve him it would be unnecessary that's what in fact what alan effectively held that's what really effectively how it's definitely you know  diligent search d j made a difference differentiating between the affidavit and the testimony with regard to the search and again in this statute to twelve doesn't even require that the affidavit described the search it just the only remedy they want is to vacate the adjudication order which was an interlocutory order and so that that's you know the waters under the bridge on that because we've got to trim addition and also there was really no harm to mr crockett from the language i just read that the no efforts were made because of his address was unknown and he couldn't be found so so those are the reasons that we say that the lack of language in the affidavit is not a problem and then as to the timing also it's the same thing the condition precedent first of all there's no authority that that they condition precedent problem is jurisdictional but second of all there was no harm from this because if the affidavit had been filed after that the yes but the statute doesn't require us to do that in the affidavit itself and in addition within the record there were service reports and so on which side we talked to which the court had it it's just so we talked to the mom the mom said she doesn't know where he is he said you know he she calls us from pay phones so that we didn't have a phone number for him and so on so all of that information from the caseworker and from the investigator was there in front of the court so the court knew at the time of the adjudication hearing what the effort bad but in addition remember it's really this problem is really moot because it's about an interlock which or you order that that didn't really affect mr crockett now so those are the only two arguments on attacking the record on its face at the time of the put a determination order just the way out of of language about what the efforts what efforts were made and the effort was made on i mean the court of that particular order so so then we reach the question of was there jurisdiction for the was there jurisdiction for the termination order and certainly there was there were  discovered when she fear five the child support complains that the that there was a bit and they had just done there which again was his sister's address where they had already sent letters that were never returned but she sent another letter which back to us came back to the c f s so we knew that that one was in effect if but those other letter is never came back some did let me ask you this if they didn't come back somebody did somebody chose not to send them back that's a fair in this case no because they never came back so we didn't know so there was never the attempt at personal service you know because the latter because the letter i remember you know for example in flower wrote in flowers for example but they said once when the certified letter came back certified letters actually aren't always good if someone is not there so what you should do the reasonable additional steps would include sending regular mail just as we did here it would set to sending letters to an occupant just as we did here so we actually did everything we should have done here but we didn't got a sister severus we got his old address on blackstone in chicago and we got another address on the same street as his parents live that he said he used to escape some sort of title issue so we got a lot of addresses this you know we can us cannot afford to send certified letters to every single address we find for every single missing parent and remember the way that the both the supreme the supreme court has said that when you have a puta father like crocker a father who has not married the father who has not you know done anything to create the presumption of paternity well first of all we didn't know that we didn't have access to that information and second of all that that doesn't create the presumption of paternity that's not under illinois law certainly i mean it's  the reply brief that the agreement between the mother and the father that he would pay child support through disability somehow creates a presumption of paternity under the statute but that's not true so i mean the statute does not mention any sort of excuse me but the supreme court's in a layer you know held that the the existence of the registry where the father would put his social security number his date of birth all the information you need to the mother told them was i'm getting child support and speaking as the mom and the children are getting it through me and again we couldn't we couldn't check that we don't have access to c f s doesn't have access to the social security database so we couldn't do new address in park city in fact there is no evidence subsequent to the face of the record that explains how a chip which is the party to the child support cd i want to make that very clear in the reply brief m fast was the petitioner in the child to purposely thing that is not true the department of health care and family services is the plaintiff in all child support cases and so what they know is not necessarily what it was is not what c f s knows and in fact there was again no evidence even if a fourteen zero one hearing that anyone involved in this case knew what the people eventually walk was the evidence presented as to that first of all there was certainly no evidence before the terminations order and with regard to the to be two fourteen zero one proceeding there was this case below not the child case worker nobody actually knew that the his address was in park city and nobody there was also no evidence as to how that case the people working on that the court to find that there was no abuse of discretion in denying mr profits post judgment motion and should have granted it in fact would be contrary to the statute it's purpose which hearing word in fact risk placing these children in foster care limbo just not in their best interest this also referred to park city and press which is really not not at issue here because the record in the child support case reflects that  to say that there was no presumption of paternity in this case is flatly false because the child support case is based on it an acknowledgement of paternity by mr crockett he was putative father to in the sense of never having had any contact with these children he lived with the mother and the children until he became ill and he was he supported the children there was a legal a number of different searches yes for the second publication took place if in fact we are relying on the un service by publication that would be factually correct however we make the case of the case and in our briefs that service by publication extra nation was was not appropriate because at that point both the c f s and the state that because of the child support case which was filed before the termination that d c fs because the case worker lower his sister's house and he cooperated with the child support people the state the state's attorney's office for child support enforcement next to no record yes it is right and the state also should have known the state has has its disposal to say should have done in each search it could have found this case because it was the case was filed not merely in the same circuit but in the same county i mean it was in the same courthouse it would been an easy thing to find out and so it's constitutionally i think fundamentally unfair to you mr crockett to allow the state to say well you know because we did this publication he was adequately serve i think meaningful way in a trial to prove his unfitness or defend defend against allegations of unfitness and to prove up what he considers to be the best interest of the children