## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## R E P O R T S Suprem e Court

In re Dar. C. , 2011 IL 111083

Caption in S upreme Court: In re DAR. C. and DAS. C., Minors (The People of the State of I llinois

, Appellee , v. Dary l Crockett, Appellant)

.

Docke t No. 111083

Filed October 27, 2011

Held ( Note : Thi s syl lab us

con st it ute s no pa r t of the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed by the Repo rt er of D e c i s i o n s f

o r t h e

c o n v e n i e n c e o

f t h e

rea der

. ) A termin at i on of a fathe r’s pare ntal rig hts by default in juvenile
proce eding s was vacated for lack of persona l jurisdiction wher e he had been serve d only by publication and wher e the filing of a support action
ag ainst him by a differ ent assistant State’s Attorney in the same prosec utor’s office cast signific ant doubt on the dilige nce of the S tate’s inquiry as to his where abouts.

Dec ision Under Review Appea l from the Appellate Court for the Fourth Di s t ri ct; hear d in that
court on ap p ea l from the Circuit Court of McL ean County
, the Hon. Kevin P. Fitzge rald, Judge, pr esiding

J udg ment Reverse d and re manded.Counsel on

Appea l Adele M. Saa f, of B loomington, for a ppellant.

L isa Madig an, Attorney Gene ral, of Springf ield (Michae l A. Scodro, Solicito r Gene ral, and Mary E. Welsh, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, of Chicag o, of counse l), for the People.

Diane L

. Redleaf

, Melissa L

. Staas and Alleg ra Cira Fische r, of Chicag o, for amici curiae FamilyDef ense Cente r et al.

J ustices CHI EF J USTI CE KI L BRIDE delivered the judgme nt of t he court, with opinion.
J ustices Thomas, Garman, and Kar meier concur red in the judgme nt and opinion.
J ustice Bu rk e specia lly concur red, with opinion, joined by J ustice Fr eema n. J ustice Theis spec ially

concur red, w ith opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 This appeal asks us to deter m i n e wh et h er t h e State perf ormed a “dilige nt inquiry ” to

asce rtain responde nt’s curr ent and last known addre ss, as require d for service by publication under section 2-16(2) of the J uvenile Court Act of 1987 (the Act) (705 I L CS 405/2-16(2) (West 2006)), and nece ssary for the trial court to obtain persona l jurisdiction in this case

. The circ uit co u rt of McL ean County terminated responde nt’s pare ntal rig hts to his two minor children, Dar

. C. and Das. C. Respondent later filed a postjudgment motion for relief under section 2-1401 of t he C ode of Civil Procedu re (735 I L CS 5/2-1401 (West 2008)), arg uing that the State failed to perf orm a diligent inquiry to asce rtain his location when it serve d him notice by publication. Respondent there fore arg ued that the State’s service by publication was inef fec tive to confe r per sonal jurisdiction on the trial court. ¶ 2 The trial court denied responde nt’s petition, and the appellate court aff irmed. No. 4-10- 026 7 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). For the following rea sons, we

reve rse the appellate court’s judgme nt, vacate the tria l c o u rt’s order terminating responde nt’s
pare ntal rig hts, and rema nd for f urther pr ocee dings.

¶ 3 I . BA CKGROUND ¶ 4 The complicated series of events underlying this case require us to detail extensively its development, focusing on the State’s attempts to locate responde nt. To provide context, we also summarize releva nt backg round informa tion.

-2-¶ 5 On Aug ust 15, 2006, the I llinois Depa rtment of Children and Fa mily Service s rec eived

a hotline call repor

ting that Tony a Findley ’s four minor daug hters wer e neg lected and periodica lly left unsupervised. The reporter c la im e d th at F in d le y w a s u s in g dr u g s. Ultimately

, the Depa rtment remove d the children from Findley and place d them in temporary protec tive custody

. ¶ 6 On S ep t em b er 7, 2006, McL ean County As s i s t an t S t at e’ s At t o rn ey M ad el i n e McL auchla n filed a petition for adjudication of war dship. The petition identified responde nt

as the putative fathe r of two of Findley ’s four daug hters, Dar

. C., born October 24, 1996, and Das. C., born M ay 13, 1998. The petition alleg ed neg lect ag ainst Findley but made no 1 alleg ations ag ainst responde nt. The petition listed responde nt’s addre ss as S h erida n Correc tional Center. ¶ 7 On September 8, 2006, the trial court held a shelter car e hearing. The shelter car e report, filed by Depa

rtment investigator Shannon Stanfill, listed responde nt’s addre ss as “Stree t addre ss unknown, Chicag o, I llinois .” Following the hearing, the trial court enter ed an ag ree d temporary

custody order

. ¶ 8 On September 11, 2006, Ass i s t an t S t at e’s Attorney McL auchla n filed an aff idavit for service by publication on responde n t , av erring that responde nt could not be found within I llinois and could there fore not be serve d in person or by certified mail. McL auchla n further

aver red that responde nt’s addre ss “ca nnot be asce rtained upon diligent inquiry ” and his last known addr ess was “ unknown.” ¶ 9 On S epte mber 19, 2006, the clerk’s office iss ued a notice of publication to respondent and “any known or unknown fathe rs” of the children. The notice was published the same day and provided, inter alia

, that a juvenile court proce eding had commenced and a hearing would be held on Oc tober 24. ¶ 10 On October 11, 2006, the Depa rt m en t ’s Di l i gen t S ea rc h S er v i ce Center issued a “ce rtification of compre hensive diligent sear ch.” The cer tification indicated that a computer

sear ch of 14 databa ses had been perf ormed. Although re s p o n d ent’s first name is spelled “Da ry l,” the sear ch was con d u cted with his first name spelled as “Da rry l.” The computer

sear ch located one potential addre ss in Peoria, I l l i n o i s

. Two letters mailed to that addre ss

wer e re turned. ¶ 11 On October 24, 2006, the trial c ourt enter ed an a djudicatory order finding

, in pertinent part, that it had persona l jurisdiction over responde nt throug h service by publication and that he had defaulted by failing to appea r afte r service by publication. The court adjudicate d the minors neg lected ba sed on F indley ’s admission of substance abuse. ¶ 12 On Dec ember 18, 2006, Depa rtment case worke r Nanc y Murrah filed a service plan and dispositi onal report. The report indicated that responde nt’s l o ca tion was unknown and a diligent sear ch on October 11 reve aled one possible addre ss. The report stated that two letters mailed to that addre ss wer e returne d “attempted–not known.” The report further stated that

T he par ti es agree tha t re spo nde nt is not the fa the r of Fin dl ey’s oth er two dau ghter s. 1 Acco rdi ngly, we do n ot det ai l t he d evelop m ent of th ei r c ase s.

-3-the dilige nt searc h would be “pe riodically updated.” ¶ 13 Following a hearing on Dec ember 20, 2006, the trial court enter ed a dispositi onal orde r finding that Findley and responde nt wer e unfit pare nts. The order noted that responde nt’s “where ab o u t s [were] unknown.” The court enter ed a perma nency g oal of returning the children home within 12 months, made them war ds of t h e co u rt , and g ave custody to the Depa rtment’s Gua

rdianship Administrator with the rig ht to place the c hildren. ¶ 14 That same day

, Murrah reque sted a second computerized diligent sear ch from the Center. The sear ch reve aled a potential addre ss of 11435 South Union Street in Chicag o, I llinois

. A letter addre ssed to responde nt was mailed to that addre ss, indicating that responde nt was the potential missing pare nt of two childre n i n the Depa rtment’s custody in McL ean County
, I llinois

. The letter provided Murrah’s telephone n u m b er and reque sted further communication from responde nt. The letter was not returne d, but Murrah re ce ived no response from re spondent. ¶ 15 I n May 2007, Murrah filed a permanency report and service plan, indicating that Dar . C.

an d Das. C. had been place d in rela tive foster car e and wer e adjusting very we l l

. Respondent’s addre ss was listed as “u n known.” Findley ’s prog ress was unsatisfac tory beca use she continued to use illegal drug s and alcohol, w a s n o n compliant with her presc ribed medication, and lacke d stable housing . Murrah rec ommended a permanency g oal of return home within 12 months and a continued finding of pare n t al u n fi t ness. The Children’s Founda tion, a private social-se rvice s o rganization, was assuming responsibility of the minors’ ca se. ¶ 16 On J uly 16, 2007, J eannie Hig don, a case wo rk er at the Children’s Founda tion, filed a
perma nency report. Respondent’s addre ss was listed as “unknown.” Hig don re quested another diligent s ea rc h o n J uly 6, but did not have the results of her sear ch when she completed her report. Hig don also asked Findley about responde nt, but Fi n d ley denied knowledg e of responde nt’s location or how responde nt could be contac ted. Hig don indicated that Dar

. C. and Das. C. wer e moved to a new foster home afte r their orig inal foster mother
reque sted their remova l. The minors wer e adjusting to their new foster home but wer e strug g ling with emotional and behavior al issues. Findley was making slow prog ress with addre ssi n g h er s ubstance abuse and obtaining stable housing. Hig don rec ommended a perma nency g oal of returning the minors home within 12 months and a continued finding of
pare ntal unfitness. ¶ 17 At a status hea ring on J uly 31, 2007, Assistant State’s Attorney McL auchla n informed the court that Findley ’s drug s cr een from J une 2007 returne d positive for coca ine. McL auchla n told the court that she believed there was no rea son to continue the perma nency g oal of returning the children home, and explained that she would file a petition to terminate
pare ntal ri gh t s “unless there is something drama tic that convince s me to do something otherwise.” ¶ 18 On S ep t em b er 2 7
, 2 0 0 7
, L au ra Seidelman, a social worke r with the Ch i l d re n ’s Founda tion, filed a service pl an

. S ei d elm an rec ommended that the perma nency g oal be chang ed to “substitute car e pending court determination on termination of pare ntal rig hts.” Seidelman found that Findley ’s prog ress was unsatisfac tory beca use she continued to use

-4-alcohol, coca ine, and marijuana

. Seidelman also filed a diligent sear ch report for responde nt

and included the results of Hig don’s sea rch f rom J uly 2007. The sea

rche s reve aled se vera l potential addre sses for respond e n t in Ch ic a g o , in c lu d in g 5 0 18 Bla ckstone Avenue
, apartment 302, 11422 Union Av en u e, and 11435 Union Avenue

. The sear ch also located a potential addre ss at 702 Sutton Court in L ake Villa, I llinois

. L etters wer e sent to all of those addre sses explaining the minors’ situation and reque sting a response

. No response was rec eived. The

rec ord does not indicate whether any letters we re r eturne d. ¶ 19 On October 17, 2007, Seidelman fil ed a perma n en cy report. Seidelman reported, inter alia

, that responde nt made a telephone call to Findley during an Octo ber 10 supervised visitation with Dar

. C. and Das. C. The gi rl s re p ortedly “bec ame very excited and seemed shocked” that responde nt called. When Seidelman told Findley that responde nt was require d
to repor t to the Depa

rtment befor e contac ting his daug hters, Findley beca me ag itated and

swore at Seidelman. Findley ’s behavior upset her daug hters, and Seidelman instructed Findley to end the visitation and telephone call. Seidelman d i d not speak to the i ndividual on the telephone and could not conf irm that it was responde nt. ¶ 20 When a s k e d

, F in d ley denied knowing responde nt’s telephone number. Findley explained that responde nt’s sister had place d the telephone call and Findley did not know her telephone number. Findley told Seidelman that responde nt was “a para noid schizophrenic” and would not talk to Seidelman. ¶ 21 On October 19, 2007, Assistant State’s Attorne y M c L auchla n filed a petition to terminate Findley and responde nt’s pare ntal rig hts. The petition alleg ed that r e s p o n dent had abandone d his two daug hters, failed to maintain a reas o n ab l e d egre e of interest, conce rn, or responsibil ity as to the minors’ welfa re, and deserted the minors for more than three
prec eding months. ¶ 22 On October 31, 2007, the trial court held a perma nency hearing. At the hear ing, A ssistant State’s Attorney McL auchla n asked that the children’ s perma nency g oal be chang ed to substitut e car e pending deter mination of the termination petition, explaining that “[t] here is just rea lly a whole lot of nothing g oing on as far as [Findley ] is con ce rn ed

. ” McL auchla n added that Findley was appar ently able to contac t responde nt but chose not to provide them with any further information about res p o ndent’s location. After the hearing, the court chang ed the perma nency g oal to substitut e car e pending deter mination of pare ntal rig hts and found that F indley

and re spondent rema ined unfit. ¶ 23 On November 2, 2007, As s i s t an t S t at e’ s Attorney McL auchla n filed an aff idavit for service by publication for r espondent on the termination petition, attesting that re spondent could not be found within I llinois

, his addre ss could not be deter mined upon diligent inquiry

, and his last known addr ess was “ unknown.” ¶ 24 I n the meantime, on Novemb er 6
, 2 0 0 7
, an o t h er assistant State’s Attorney from the McL ean County

State’s Attorney ’s offic e filed a complaint in a sepa rate action (N o. 07-F

401 (McL ean County )) seeking child support from responde nt. The complaint noted that

res p o n d en t had voluntarily acknow ledg ed his pater nity of Dar

. C. under section 12 of the Vi t al R ecords Act (410 IL CS 535/12 (West 2006)). The complaint included a case det ai l
report from the I llinois Depa rtment of Public Aid, listi ng responde nt’s date of birth, Social

-5-Security number, and phy sical description. The report identified responde nt’s mailing

addre ss as 702 Sutton Court, L ake Villa, I llinois

. Seidelman, the minors’ case worke r in the termination ca se, sig ned and ve rified the c omplaint, dated Octobe r 9. ¶ 25 On Novembe r 8, 2007, a summons in the child support case was issued for responde nt at the L ake Villa add re s s , b u t the sheriff returne d it unserve d. The sheriff noted that an unidentified rela tive claimed that responde nt did not live at the L ake Vi l l a ad d ress. The unidentified rela tive was “uncoope rative” and ref used to provide the sheriff any other information about re spondent. ¶ 26 On November 15, 2007, the court cler k published service to respondent on the petition to terminate his par ental rig hts. ¶ 27 On Dec ember 7, 2007, Assistant State’s Attorney Dea n Eng elbre cht, pursuing the child support case , mailed respon dent a letter proposing a child support order

, making I llinois Foster Care the oblige e of depende nt payments on behalf of t he mi nors from responde nt’s Social Security disability income. The letter was addre ssed to responde nt at an addre ss in Gra y slake, I llinois

, in car e of a L ake County health department tr eatment cente r. The letter ref ere nced a Dec ember 5, 2007, t el ep h o n e conver sation betwee n responde nt, Assistant State’s Attorney

Eng elbre cht, and r espondent’s unna med ca seworke r. ¶ 28 On Dec ember 19, 2007, the trial court in the termination proce eding enter ed an o rd er finding responde nt defa

ulted by publication and unfit on all three g rounds alleg ed in the petition. The court a lso scheduled a best interest he aring for Ma rch 2008. ¶ 29 On Fe bruary 22, 2008, the trial court enter ed an order terminating Findley ’s p ar en t al rig hts after

she executed a

voluntary

surre nder of

those rig hts. ¶ 30 On Marc h 7, 2008, the trial court held a best interests hearing for responde nt’s two minor children. The State’s only witness was Seidelman, who testified that responde nt never came forwa rd to claim pater nity of the two minors

. Seidelman perf ormed a diligent sear ch for responde nt. Seidelman l o ca t ed a number of addresses for responde nt and mailed letters to those addre sses but never rec eived a response from responde nt. When the child support prog ram provided Seidelman wit h a L ake V illa addre ss for respondent, she mailed a letter
to that addre ss, but there was no re sponse. The r ecor d does not indicate w hether that letter

was re turned. ¶ 31 S ei d el m an ex p l ai n ed t h at re s p ondent rec eived Social Security income, an d t h e Depa rtment rec eived some of that income for the children. Seidelman reported that none of 2 responde nt ’s relatives had made any attempt to communicate with the minors. Seidelman

rec ommended terminating responde nt’s pare ntal rig hts to allow his daug hters to be adopted. ¶ 32 After Seidelman rec ommended terminating responde nt’s pare ntal rig hts, the court asked whether responde nt was ever involved in the minors’ lives. Seidelman explained that there

was “some involvement” when the g irls were y oung er but when Findley moved them to Blooming ton respon d ent was no longe r involved “other than occa sional phone contac t.”

T her e is no eviden ce in the r e c ord tha t Sei del m an m ade any inq uir y wit h the agency 2 dis per si ng Findl ey and t he minor s’ Soc ia l Se cur it y income to as cer ta in it s s our ce.

-6-Seidelman stated that Dar

. C., as the older chil d

, retained some memory of responde nt.

Acc ording to Seidelman, Dar

. C. claimed to talk occa sionally to responde nt on the telephone and was upset when Findley would not let Dar

. C. talk to responde nt at the supervised visit in October

2007. ¶ 33 Following Seidelman’s testimony

, Assistant Sta t e’s Attorney McL auchlan arg ued that it was in the minors’ best interests to terminate responden t ’s pare ntal rig hts beca use responde nt ne ver came forwa rd in the case and F indley had alr eady

surre ndere d her rig hts. McL auchla n noted that if responde nt’s rig hts wer e not terminated “t h es e children will lang uish in foster ca se.” ¶ 34 Brian Goldrick, the g uardia n ad litem for the minors, ag ree d, noting that the minors’ case had been open for 18 months and responde nt ha d never become involved. Goldrick arg ued that responde nt is “proba bly awa re that his children are in ca re , and he’s done nothing to provide for

these c hildren over

the last 18 months.” ¶ 35 Following the hea ring , the trial court commented that Seidelman properly conducte d a diligent se arc h and mailed letter s to r espondent’s potential addre sses. The court stated that responde nt’s failure to rema in involved wi t h t h e minors afte r t hey moved t o Blooming ton “proba bly ” ref lected responde nt’s lack of interest and also noted that responde nt was absent for the entire 18-m o n t h custody period. The court then enter ed an order terminating responde nt’s pare ntal rig hts. The court found that responde nt was defa ulted and found unfit
at the Dec ember 19 hearing and that the best interests of Dar

. C. and Das. C. require d appointment of a g uardia n with the rig ht to consent to adoption. The court also chang ed the minors’ perma nency

g oal to adoption. ¶ 36 I n J uly 2008, Ang ela DeVore

, Seidelm an ’s s upervisor, filed a permanenc y report. The
report explained, inter alia

, that the minors’ foster pare nts pref err ed subsidiz ed g uardia nship

over a doption. ¶ 37 I n Aug ust 2008, responde nt filed a pro se motion seeking to vaca te the trial court’s order terminating his pare ntal rig hts. Respondent asserted that he did not lear n his pare ntal rig hts had been terminated until J uly 2008 when he contac ted the Depa rtment to reque st visitation with his daug hters. R espondent stated that he was disabled and pr ovided financ ial support to his two daug hters throug h his Socia l Sec urity disability income. Respondent denied that he wa s provided proper notice and arg ued that “he was disenfra nchised and denied his due
proce ss rig ht[ s ] ” b y t h e Depa rtment’s service by publication. Respondent provided two mailing addre sses, one in Park City

, I llinois

, and the second in L ake Villa, I llinois

. The trial

c o u r t struck responde nt’s pro se motion as untimely and not within the pleading requir e me n ts of section 2-1401 of the Code. The court also noted that responde nt was never decla red the minors’ fathe r and ha d not submit ted himself to a pate rnity test. ¶ 38 I n September 2008, responde nt, throug h h i s at t o rn ey , fi led a section 2-1401 motion seeking to vacate the trial court’s termination order

. Respondent arg ued that the Depa rtment’s attempts to loca te him in the underly ing termination proce eding s wer e not sufficie ntly diligent under section 2-16(2) of the Act. Respondent further asserted that the McL ean County State’s Attorney ’s office acquir ed his mailing addre ss in the separ ate child support action befor e the trial court enter ed the termination order

. Thus, responde nt arg ued

-7-that service by publication in the termination proce eding was improper beca use the State knew his actua l location. Be cause service b y publication was not permissible under those circ umstances, the tr ial court lac ked per sonal jurisdiction to enter the termination order. ¶ 39 At a hear

ing on responde nt’s motion, responde nt testified that he was the fathe r of Da r. C. and Das. C. Respondent l i v ed with Findley when his daug hters were born and shared a residence with them for four or five y ear s. Respondent conce ded that he had not seen his daug hters for a few y ear s but explained that it was difficult to visit them afte r Findley moved and he beca me ill. Respondent tried to maintain telephone contac t with his daug hters and
sent them g ifts and car ds. Respondent also provided Findley with fin ancial assistance

. Respondent denied e ver a busing or neg lecting his daug hters. ¶ 40 Respondent stated that he s u ff ered from bipolar disorder and rec eived Social Security disability benef

its, with the L ake County health department t re at m ent cente r acting as his
pay ee. Respondent’s daug hters also rec eived depende nt benef its. Respondent lived at 3274 Seventh Street, apartment 3, in Park City

, I llinois

. Prior to living in Park City

, responde nt also lived with his sister, Stephanie, at 702 Sutton Court in L ake Villa, I llinois

, and with his
pare nts at 11435 Union Street in Chicag o, I llinois

. Respondent rec eived mail at his sister’ s addre ss and h i s p ar ents ’ addre sses, and they would forwa rd his mail to him. Findley also knew how to contac t responde nt and h is sister Stephanie. Respondent, howeve r, denied

rec eiving any corr espondenc e from the Depa rtment conce rning his daug hters Dar

. C. and Das. C. Respon d en t agr eed to an entry of a formal child support order in McL ean County afte r Assistant State’s Attorney Eng elbre cht contac ted him. Respondent communicated with Eng elbre cht by

telephone and fax machine. ¶ 41 Respondent’s sister Stephanie also testified and denied that s h e ev er re ce i v ed any

corr espondenc e from the Depa rtment at her home at 702 Sutton Court in L ake Villa, I llinois

. Stephanie expla i n ed that responde nt rec eived trea tment from the Assertive Communi ty Treatment team at the L ak e C o unty health depar tment, including assistance with his

me d ic ations and coordina tion of his Social Security benef its. Stephanie last saw re s p o n d e n t’ s daug ht er s in 2005 when Findley broug ht them to her house for a visit with responde nt. Stephanie testified that she and responde nt loved his daug hters and wanted a re l at ionship with them. Stephanie did not know whether any one in her household ref used a summons for responde nt in November 2007. ¶ 42 After h e a

ring the testimony

, the trial court dismiss ed responde nt’s section 2-1401 motion without prejudice

. Respondent filed a direc t appea l, but the appellate court dismiss ed his
appea l for lack of jurisdiction beca use t h e trial court’s order dismiss ing the complaint without prejudice was not final. In re Dar. C.
, No

. 4 -0 8 -0972 (2009) (unpublished order under Supre me Court Rule 23). ¶ 43 I n J anuary 2009, the trial court enter ed an order chang ing the minors’ perma nency g oal from adoption to subsidiz ed g uardia nship. ¶ 44 On May 12, 2009, responde nt filed a second petition for re l i ef under section 2-1401,

asserting that service of proce ss was i n ef fe ct i ve on both the petition for adjudication of

war dship and the petit ion for termination of pare ntal rig hts. This pleading is the subject of this case.

-8-¶ 45 I n J uly 2009, the trial court held a hearing on re s p o n d en t ’s s ec o n d section 2-1401

petition. Assistant State’s Attor n ey M cL auchlan orally moved to dismiss responde nt’s petition, but the court declined to rule on the petition befor e responde nt’s pater nity was established. ¶ 46 I n Aug ust 2009, g enetic testing was perf ormed that established responde nt’s pater nity of Dar . C. and Das. C. ¶ 47 I n September 2009, the t ri al co u rt en t er ed an order approving private subsidized
g uardia nship of the minors and discha rg ing the Depa

rtment as the minors’ g uardian. ¶ 48 I n October 2009, the trial court held a h ea ri n g o n re s p o n d en t ’s s ec ond petition. Re s p o n d e n t’ s s is ter Stephanie testified that responde nt lived with Findley and their daug hters until he was diag nosed with a mental illness, specific ally schizoaffe ctive disorder. Following his diag nosis, responde nt periodica lly lived with his pare nts or Stephanie. Respondent also

s p en t some time at mental health fac iliti es and hospitals. Stephanie beca me responde nt’s temporary g uardia n in 2003 to co nsent to his medical treatment. Stephanie explained that responde nt suffe red from an on-g oing illness and neede d reg ular trea tment and medication. ¶ 49 Stephani e te s ti f ie d th at in O c tober 2007 she arr ang ed a confe renc e telephone call betwe en responde nt and Findley

. At that time, responde nt was a pat ient at the Elg in State Mental Fa cility

. Stephanie rema ined on the line and hear d responde nt briefly talk to Dar

. C. and then hear d Fi n d l ey s wearing

. The telephone call soon ended. Stephanie did not have any additional contac t with respondent’s c hildren af ter that incide nt. Stephanie denied tha t she

ever rec eived any information from the Depa rtment about t h e minors. After Stephanie’s testimony

, the court reque sted additional briefing and arg uments on the Depa rtment’s eff

orts to located r espondent a nd schedule d a sec ond hearing in F ebrua ry 2010. ¶ 50 At the Fe bruar y 2010 hearing, the State prese nted the testimony of four employ ees of the Depa rtment. Dawn Spencer
, a Depa rtment court monitor and private ag ency monitor, testified that the fede ral g overnme nt prohibited the Depa rtment’s diligent sear ch cente r from

acc essing fede ral So ci al Security rec ords without a rele ase from the individual being

sear ched. Spencer also testified that t h e d i l i gen t sear ch cente r did not sear ch public aid

rec ords. ¶ 51 Shannon Stanfill, the initial Depa rtment investigator assig ned to Findley ’s case , testified that he was informed that responde nt lived in Chicag o at an unknown ad d ress. Findley
reported to Stanfill that Findley and one of her child re n rec eived Social Security income based on their own respe ctive “issues.” Stanfill did not verify this information nor did he ask Findley to sign a rele ase of Social Security information. Stanfill could not rec all whether he asked F indley

for r espondent’s te lephone number or the na mes of re spondent’s re latives. ¶ 52 J oy Her shberg er, a Depa rtment place ment worke r, testified that she worke d with Findley in an ea rlier c ase involving the Depa rtment in 2005. During Her shberg er’ s involvement in that case , Findley reported that responde nt lived in Chica g o. Findley also told He rshber g er that she and Dar

. C. rec eived Social Security benef its but did not m en t i o n responde nt’s

connec tion, if any , to the rec eipt of those bene fits. ¶ 53 Nanc y Murrah, the Depa rtment case worke r in Findley ’s ca s e, t es t i fi ed that Findley
reported that responde nt lived in the Chicag o are a but Findley did not provide specific

-9-information of hi s location. M urrah hear d from som eone involved in the case t hat Findley

and responde nt rec eived Social Security benef its, but Findley h er s elf did not offe r the information. Murrah did not seek a rele ase from Findley and did not attempt to verify the information about the Social Security benef its. Murrah req u es ted two sear ches from the Center for responde nt, rec eived two potential addresses, and mailed letters to those addre sses. Murrah did not rece ive a r esponse to the letter s. ¶ 54 Respondent prese nted the testimony of Ang ela DeVor e, prog ram manag er at Children’s Home and Aid. DeVor e was assig ned to F indley ’s case in N ovember 2007, and supervised L aura Seidelman. DeVo re acknow ledg ed that Seidelman signe d the complaint for child support in the minors’ case and explained that Depa rtment case worke rs routinely signe d
reque sts for child support. DeVor e fur th e r e xp lained, howeve r, that the Depa rtment of Hea lth and Fa mily Service s (DHF S) assumed responsibility for all child sup p o rt case s approximately three y ear s ag o. Acc ording to D eVor e, when the Depa rtment has custody or g uardia nship of a minor, DHF S c onducts all backg round work in child support actions and then s ends t he child support complaint to a Departme n t case worke r for signature. DeVore had no knowledg e of how DHF S obtained responde nt’s contac t informatio n i n t h e child support action. ¶ 55 I n Marc h 2010, the trial cou rt d en i ed re s p o n d en t’s second section 2-1401 petition, finding that service by publication co n fe rred persona l jurisdiction over responde nt for the petition for adjudication and the petition for termination beca use the Depa

rtment conducte d diligent sear ches. T h e co u rt noted that Findley was the Depa rtment’s only source of information about re spondent and the Socia l Security benef its. Findley

, howeve r, failed to

reve al any information about responde nt. The court conclude d that the child support action

was a separ ate proce eding and the information obtained i n t h at proce eding could not be attributed to the termination proc eeding

. ¶ 56 On appeal, the appellate court aff irmed, finding th at t h e fi rs t s er vice by publication following a dil ige nt inquiry on the petit i o n for adjudication provided personal j urisdiction for the entire proce eding

. No. 4-10-0267 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). ¶ 57 This court allowed responde nt’s petition for leave to appeal (I ll. S. Ct. R. 315 (ef f. Fe b. 26, 2010)) and allowed the Fa mily Def en s e C enter to file a brief amicus curiae in support of re spondent (I ll. S. C t. R. 345 (eff. Sept. 20, 2010) ).

¶ 58 I I . ANAL YSI S ¶ 59 On appeal, responde n t ar gu es t h at the State failed to perf orm the requisite “dilig ent inquiry ” to asce rtain his location. Specifica lly

, responde nt arg ues that the State’s underly ing service by publication under section 2-1 6 (2 ) o f t he Act was ineffe ctive to confe r persona l jurisdiction to the trial court when the State did not perf orm an adequate diligent inquiry and failed t o locate him. Thus, responde nt arg ues that the trial court’s adjudication and termination order s were void for lac k of per sonal jurisdiction. ¶ 60 We re v i ew d e n o vo t h e l ega l question of whether a trial court obtained per sonal jurisdiction. In re Detention of Hardin

, 23 8 I l l. 2d 33, 39 (2010). As this court has

rec og nized, “[i ]f a court lacks either subject matter jurisdiction ove r the matter or persona l

-10-jurisdiction over the parties, any order enter ed in the matter is void ab initio and, thus, may

be attac ked at any time.” In re M.W

. , 232 I ll. 2d 408, 414 (2009); see a lso Johnston v. City of Bloomington

, 77 I ll. 2d 108, 112 (1979) (whe n subject matter jurisdi ct i o n o r persona l jurisdiction is l ac king “the procee dings are a nul lity and no rig hts are cre ated by them and they may be decla

red void when collater ally attacke d”). When a trial court fails to obt ain
persona l jurisdiction over a litigant, it is depri v ed o f t h e authority or power to impose judgme nt ag ainst the litigant. In re M .W

. , 232 I ll. 2d at 428. ¶ 61 Relevant to this appea l, pe rsonal jurisdiction may be imposed on a litig ant by eff ective service of sum mons. In re M.W

. , 232 I ll. 2 d at 426. Providing effe ctive service is a means of protec t i n g an i n d ividual’s rig ht to due proce ss by allowing for proper notification of interested individuals a nd an opportunity to be hear d. Mullane v. Central Hanov er Bank & Trust Co.
, 339 U.S. 306 (1950). Be cause the t er m i n at i o n of pare ntal rig hts implicates a fundame ntal liberty interest, the proce dures employ ed must comply with due proce ss. In re M.H.
, 196 I ll. 2d 356, 363 (2001) (citing Santosky v. Kramer
, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982))

. Ultimately

, in ad equate service of summons or proce ss divests the trial court of persona l jurisdiction. In re Antwan L. , 368 I ll. App. 3d 1119, 1128 (2006). ¶ 62 S ec t i o n 2 -15 of the Act g overns service of the summons of a petition alleg ing a buse,
neg lect, or depende ncy of a minor. 705 I L C S 4 0 5 / 2-15 (West 2006). The summons must include a copy of the petition and be addre ssed to the minor’s leg al g uardia n or custodian and
to eac h named responde nt in the petition. Personal service may be made by a county sheriff

, corone r, or probation office r and must be made, in pertinent part, by either (1) delivering a copy of the summons and petition to the person being summoned or (2) delivering a copy to that person’ s usual place of abode and leaving it with a family member who is at least 10
y ear s of ag e and then mailing a copy to the person being summoned. 705 I L CS 405/2-15(5) (West 2006). The return o f t h e s u m mons with endorse ment of service by the office r is sufficie nt proof of se rvice . 705 I L CS 405/ 2-15(4) (West 2006). ¶ 63 When persona l service under section 2-15 cannot be acc omplished, the Act provides two other mecha nisms for service of summons. Section 2-16(1) allows for service by certified mail when persona l service under section 2 -1 5 is not made within a rea sonable time or it
appea rs that the responde nt resides outside the state. 705 I L CS 405/2-16(1) (West 2006). The
reg ular return receipt for certified mail is sufficie nt proof of service by ce rt i fi ed m ail. 705 I L CS 405/ 2-16(1) (West 2006). ¶ 64 As a last resort, section 2-16(2) allows for the final type of service authorized by the Act, service by publication. Section 2-16(2) require s, in pertinent part, that: “Where a responde nt’s usual place of abode is not known, a diligent inquiry shall be made to asce rtain the responde nt’s curr ent and last known addre ss. The Depa rtment of Children and Fa m i ly Service s shall adopt rules defining the require ments for conducting a diligent sear ch to locate pare nts of minors in t h e custody of the Depa rtment. I f, aft er d i l i g ent inquiry made at any time within the prec eding 12 months, the usual place of abode cannot be rea sonably asce rtained, or if responde nt is conce aling his or her wher eabouts to avoid service of proce ss, petitioner’s attorney shall file an aff

idavit at the office of the cler k of court in which the action is pending

-11-showing that responde nt on due inquiry cannot be found or is c oncea ling his or he r wher eabouts so that proce ss cannot be serve d. The aff idavit shall state the last known addre ss of the responde nt. The aff idavit shall also stat e what eff orts wer e made to eff ectua te servic e.” 705 I

L CS 405/ 2-16(2) (West 2006). Thus, section 2-16(2) contempla t es a trial court obtaining persona l jurisdiction throug h service by publication only when the State has conducte d a diligent inquiry to asce rtain the responde nt’s location and last known a ddress. ¶ 65 Although section 2-16(2) does not define what constit ut es a diligent inquiry or sea rch, the standard is rec og nized to be “that kind of sear ch or investigation which a diligent person, intent on asce rtaining a fac t, would usually and ordinarily make.” (I nterna l quotation marks omitted.) In re Sheltanya S.
, 309 I ll. App. 3d 941, 956 (1999) (quoting In re A.S.B.
, 293 I ll. App. 3d 836 (1997))

. I n turn, the term “dilige nt” means “characterized by steady

, earnest, attentive, and ener g etic appli cation and eff ort in a pursuit.” Webster’s Third New I nterna tional Dictionary

633 (1993). ¶ 66 Her e, the rec ord demonstrates that responde nt suffe rs from a mental illness, and that he moved periodica lly betwee n his I llinois residenc e, his rela tives’ respe ctive homes in I llinois

, and trea tment fac iliti es in I llinois

. The termination proce eding s, initiated in McL ean County in September 2006, lasted for 18 months, culminating with the Marc h 200 8 order terminating responde nt’s pare ntal rig hts. During this time, the Depa rtment and the State consistently maintained that responde nt could not be located in I llinois

. I n a separ ate child support action in McL ean County
, howeve r, the State succe ssfully located responde nt at a trea tment cente r in L ake County , I llinois , in Dece mber 2007, and obtained responde nt’s consent to entry of a child support orde r using funds from his Social Security disabilitybenef

its. ¶ 67 Foc using on the termination proce eding s in this c ase, the eff orts of the Depa

rtment and the S tate to locate respondent consisted primarily

, if no t en t i re l y , of entering responde nt’s

name into various computer databa ses and then mailing letters to potential addre ss matches, and asking Findley

about re spondent’s location. The petition f or adjudication of w ardship, filed September

7, 2006, identified respondent as the f ather of two of F indley ’s two minor children a nd listed his address, albe it incorrec tly , as Sheridan Corr ectional Cente r. ¶ 68 T h e S t at e’ s affidavit for service by publication on the adjudication peti t i o n , fi l ed September 11, 2006, attested that responde nt could not be located in I llinois afte r diligent inquiry and there fore could not be serve d in person or by certified mail. The aff idavit listed responde nt’s last known addre ss as “unknown.” The aff idavit does not indicate what steps, if any , wer e take n by

the State to locate r espondent. The service by publication was issued on September 19, 2006. ¶ 69 I n October 2006, a month after the State’s initial aff idavit for service by publication was filed, the Depa

rtment’s Dilige nt Se a

r c h Serv ic e Ce n ter is s u ed a “ce rtificate of compre hensive diligent sear ch,” indicating that responde nt’s name had been enter ed into 14 addre ss databa ses. This initial computer sear ch, ho we ver, was conducte d with responde nt’s first

name misspelled as “Da

rry l,” rathe r that its corr ect spelling as “Da ry l.” I t reve aled a potential addre ss in Peoria, I llinois

, and a letter was mailed to that addre ss but no response was

rec eived.

-12-¶ 70 Subsequent computerized sear ches of responde nt’s name, using his proper ly spelled first

name , p ro d u ce d a potential match at 702 Sutton Court in L ake Villa, I llinois

, his sister’s residenc e. The sear ches also produce d potential matches at various addre s s es in Chicag o, I llinois

, includin g h is p a

r e nts’ addre ss and his own former addre sses. The Depa rtment mailed letters to those addre sses, but r ece ived no response . There is no evidence in the rec ord that the State or the Depa

rtment sent any one to those addre sses to inquire abou t responde nt’s location. ¶ 71 Shannon Stanfill, the Depa rtment case worke r initially assig ned to the minors’ case , was informed that responde nt lived in the Chic ago ar ea

. Findley told Stanfill that she and her child rec eived Social Security income, but Stanfill did not verify thi s information or ask Findley to sign a rele ase of Social Security information. Stanfill could not reme mber asking Findley for r espondent’s te lephone number or the na mes of re spondent’s re latives. ¶ 72 Nanc y Murrah, another Depa rtment case worke r, wa s also told that responde nt lived in the Chicag o are a and that Findley was rec eiving Social Security benef its. Murrah, howeve r, did not verify rec eipt of those benef its or reque st a rele ase of information from Findley

. J oy Her shberg er, a Depa

rtment place ment worke r who worke d with Findley in a previous case , testified that Findley told he r that responde nt lived in the Chicag o are a. Findley also stated that she and D ar. C. re ceive d Social Security benef its. ¶ 73 I n October 2007, L aura S ei d el m an , t h e m i n o rs ’ ca s ew orker from the Children’s Fo u n dation, was prese nt during a supervised visit betwee n Findley and the minors wh en responde nt called Findley

. When Seidelman instructed Findley to tell responde nt that he was require d to contac t the Depa rtment befor e talking to his daug hters, Findley beca me ang ry and ended the call. Seidelman could not verify respo n d en t wa s on the telephone and Findley denied knowing responde nt’s contac t information. Seidelman also signe d the complaint for child support in the separ ate action. Seidelman’s supervisor, Ang ela Devor e, did not know how the State located responde nt’s contac t informat i o n i n the child support action. Ultimately

, the Depa

rtment and the State wer e unable to locate or contac t responde nt in the termination proce eding s. ¶ 74 Consequently

, when the State filed its aff id av i t fo r s er v i ce o f p u b l i ca t ion on the termination petition on November 2, 2007, it attested that re spondent could not be loca ted in I llinois afte r diligent inquiry

. The aff i d av i t listed responde nt’s last known addre ss as “unknown.” The ser vice by publication was issued on Nove mber 15, 2007. ¶ 75 Afte r ca re fu l l y re v i ew i n g t h i s re co rd, we cannot conclude that the State and the Depa rtment perf

ormed the type of sear ch or investigation that an earnest and attentive person seeking to lear n a fac t would ordinarily make, namely

, the diligent i n q u i ry require d by

s ection 2-16(2)

. Notably

, the State and the Depa rtment failed to conduct any sear ch o r investig a ti o n into a number of opportunities to acquir e responde nt’s contac t information. See 705 I L CS 405/ 2-16(2) (West 2006) (providing that “[w]here a responde nt’s usual place of abode is not known, a diligent inquiry shall be made to asce rtain the responde nt’s curr ent and last known addre ss”). ¶ 76 The Depa

rtment was awa

re that responde nt lived in the Chicag o are a, but its e mploy ees did not visit or inquire at any of the potential addre ss matches in the are a, including those

-13-that eventua lly proved to be responde nt’s sister ’s re s i d en ce in L ake Villa and his pare nts’

residenc e in Chicag o. Stanfill, the initial case worke r assig ned to the case , could not rec all if he a s k ed Findley for respondent’s contact telephone num ber or the names of respondent’s rela tives. Respondent’s sister, howeve r, denied rec eiving any contac t f rom the Depa

rtment about the minors’ situation

, and testified that she and responde nt wanted a continued rela tionship with the minors. Thus, it is rea sonable to presume that if a Depa rtment employ ee had talked to responde nt’s sister or his pare nts about the minors’ situation, they would have provided some a ssistance. ¶ 77 The Depa

rtment was al s o i n fo rm ed that Findley and the minors wer e rec eiving Social Security benefi t s, but no one made any attempt to verify Findley ’s source of income or reque st he r to authorize a r elea se of that information. Arg uably

, the failure to f ollow up on the Social Security information was a missed opportunity to lear n if responde nt was a source of that income a nd to acquire his contact infor mation. ¶ 78 I n other words, while the Depa rtment was awa

re that re s p o n d en t re p o rt edly lived in Chicag o and the various computer sear ches produce d a number of potential addre ss matches in the Chicago area, the Depa rtment did not conduct any inquiry into those addre sses. I nstead, the Depa

rtment simply mailed letters to those addre sses. Simi larly

, althoug h Depa rtment employ ees wer e awa re that Findley claimed to be rec eiving Social Security benef its, the Depa

rtment did not make any inquiry into this information

. T h er e i s no explanation in the rec ord why the Depa rtment chose not to p u rsue further inquiry into the potential addre ss matches or the Social Security information. ¶ 79 Respondent also repo r te d ly c a ll e d F in d le y during a supervised visitation but no eff ort was made to obtain responde nt’s contac t information during that incident. L ikewise, althoug h a

case worke r wa s awa

re tha t respondent c ontacted F indley and Da r. C. by telephone there is no evidenc e in the re cord of any attempt to obtain respondent’ s telephone numbe r. ¶ 80 I n addition, the complaint in the separ ate child support action indicated that responde nt had voluntarily acknow ledg ed his pater nity of Dar

. C. under section 12 of the Vital Records Act (410 IL CS 535/12 (West 2006)). The complaint included a case detail report from the I llinois Depa

rtment of Public Aid, listi ng responde nt’s date of birth, Social Security number, and phy sical description. I t also identified responde nt’s mailing addre ss as 702 Sutton Court, L ake Villa, I llinois

. Seidelman, the minors’ case worke r in the termination case , signe d and verifie d the complaint, but otherwise conducte d no foll o wu p o n responde nt’s persona l information contained in that report. Ag ain, the rec ord is silent on why t he Depa rtment conducte d no further

inquiry

. ¶ 81 I n our view, the diligent inq u i ry o f s ec t i o n 2 -1 6(2) nece ssarily require s a g ood-fa ith attempt at ac q u i ri ng the contact information of a parent whose wher eabouts are unknown, including inquiry about potential leads on the pare nt’s wher eabouts. When, as here

, the State and the Depa

rtment possess information that rea sonably could be relied on t o d i s cover a missing pare nt’s location with further investigation, we believe that a diligent person intent

on locating the pare nt would perf orm that investigation. Of course , when the only available information about a paren t i s h i s o r her name, a computerized databa se sear ch and letters might be suf

ficient to satisfy

the dilige nt inquiry

require ment in section 2-16(2)

.

-14-¶ 82 I n this case , howeve r, the State and the Depa rtment possessed additional knowledg e that
may have led t h em to responde nt’s contac t information. For example, the State and the Depa rtment possessed informa t i o n that responde nt lived in the Chicag o are a and had discovere d mu l tiple potential addre ss matches in that are a from the computer sear ch. The Depa rtment knew that F in d le y an d minors rec eived Social Security benef its. The Depa

rtment al s o k n ew t h at responde nt place d a call to Findley during a supervised visit and had
contac ted Findley and his daug hter by telephone on other occa sions as well. It is rea sonable
to assume that a dil ige nt inq u i ry i n t o t h ose m atters would have likely resulted in the S tate acquir ing responde nt’s contac t information. I n fac t, the State’s ability to obtain responde nt’s
contac t information in the separ ate child suppo rt action casts signific ant doubt on the diligenc e of the State’s inquiry into responde nt’s location in the terminati on proce eding s here

. ¶ 83 Section 2-16(2) unequivoca lly require s a diligent inquiry in every instance when service by p u b l ication is used, reg ardle ss of whether that inquiry ultimately proves succe ssful in locating the pare nt. 705 I L CS 405 / 2 -1 6(2) (West 2006). Moreove r, beca use service by publication is meant as a last resort of serving summons, it should be used only afte r a g enuine diligent inquiry to locate the individual has been completed. Put simply

, rely ing on

a computerized d at abase sear ch of a pare nt’s name while ignoring, or otherwise not in v e s ti g a ti ng , other potentially useful information does not constitute a diligent inquiry und e r section 2-16( 2).

¶ 84 I I I . CONCL USI ON ¶ 85 We c onclude that the State and the Depa rtment failed to perf

orm the nece ssary diligent inquiry under section 2-16(2)
, the statute au t h o ri n g service by publication in this case

. Be cause the requisite diligent inquiry was not perf ormed, the State’s service by publication

was defe ctive and did not confe r persona l jurisdiction to the t ri al court, rende ring its judgme nt void. In re M.W

. , 232 I ll. 2d at 4 1 4 ; In r e A n t w an L.
, 368 I ll. App. 3d at 1128. Acc ording ly

, we reve rse the appellate court’s judgme nt, vacat e t h e trial court’s order terminating responde nt’s pare ntal rig hts, and remand to the circ u i t court for further
proce eding s.

¶ 86 Reverse d and re manded.

¶ 87 J USTI CE BURKE, spe cially concur ring : ¶ 88 Whil e I ag ree with the majority that the judgme nt terminat i n g re s p o n d en t ’s pare ntal rig hts must be set aside, I write separ ately beca use I disag ree with the rea soning used by the majority to rea ch that re sult.

¶ 89 I . Respondent’s Claims ¶ 90 I n Marc h of 2008, t h e ci rc u i t co u rt of McL ean County enter ed a default judgment terminating the pare ntal rig hts of the responde nt, Dary l Crockett. P ri o r t o the entry of the

-15-judgme nt, responde nt was twice serve d by publication–first in September of 2006, befor e the

adjudication phase of the proce eding s, and ag ain in November 2007, befor e the termination phase. ¶ 91 I n May of 2009, responde nt filed a pet i t i o n pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedur e (735 I L CS 5/2-1401 (West 2008)), seeking to have the default judgme nt set aside. I n his petition, responde nt alleg ed that both publication notices wer e invalid and that the circ uit court lacke d persona l jurisdiction over him at the time it entered t h e default judgme nt. T hus, acc ording to responde nt, the judgme nt te rminating his pa renta l r ights was void and should be set aside. The circ uit court denied responde nt’s petition and the appellate
court a ffirme d. No. 4-10-0267 ( unpublished order under Supre me Court Rule 23). ¶ 92 Be fore this court, responde nt repe ats his claims that both of the publication notices wer e invalid. Wit h respe ct to the September 2006 notice, responde nt’s primary contention is that the Department of Chi ldren a nd Fa milyService s (Depa rtment) fa iled to conduct a diligent inquiry to locate him, as require d under section 2-16(2) of the J uvenile Court Act (705 I L CS 405/2-16(2) (West 2006)), befor e serving him by publication. Wit h respe ct to the November 2007 noti ce , responde nt maintains that the Depa rtment and the McL ean County State’s Attorney had actua l knowledg e of his wher eabouts and, for that rea son, service by publication was improper

. ¶ 93 The State, in response , initially contends that both of responde nt’s principal c ontentions
reg arding the publication notices are impermissible c o ll ater a l atta cks on the defa ult judgme nt and, there fore

, are not proper ly befor e this court. I n so arg uing, the State does not challeng e the g ener al rule which holds that a judgme nt enter ed by a court lacking persona l jurisdiction is void ab initio and may be challeng ed at any time. See In re M.W

. , 232 I ll. 2 d 408, 414 (2009). Nor does the State dispute that responde nt has alleg ed in his section 2-1401 petition that the circ uit court lacke d persona l jurisdiction when the co u rt en t ere d the judgme nt terminating responde nt’s pare ntal rig hts. ¶ 94 I nstead, the State focuse s on the nature of the proof that must be offe red to establish that

a judgme nt is void for lack of jurisdiction. Citi ng to In re Custody of Ayala

, 344 I ll. App. 3d 574, 583-84 (2003), In re Marriage of Stefiniw
, 253 I ll. App. 3d 1 9 6
, 200-01 (1993), and City of Rock

ford v. Lemar
, 157 I ll. App. 3d 350, 353-54 (1987), the State invokes a common law rule which recog nizes that a judgment entered without jurisdiction is void and subject
to collateral ch al l en ge at any time, but which holds that, in order to prove the judgme nt is void, the jurisdictional defe ct must appea r on the fa ce of

the re cord. See g ener ally 23A I ll. L

. and Prac. Jud

g me n ts § 158, at 15 (2008) (“Want of jurisdiction to enter the judgme nt ordinarily must appea

r on th e fa ce of the rec ord to furnish a basis for collater al attack.” ); Restatement (Second) of J udg ments § 77, cmt. a, at 224 ( 1982) (“It was a rule in common law courts that a judgme nt appea ring to be valid on its fac e could not be shown to be invalid by p ro of contra dicting the rec ord of the action in which the judgme nt was rende red.” ); 47 Am. J ur. 2d Judgme nts § 760 (2006). Pursuant to this “ ‘absolute verity ’ ” rule ( United States

v. Bigford

, 365 F.3d 859, 867 (10th Cir. 2004) ), if the jurisdictional de fec t doe s not a ppear

on the fac e of the rec ord, the judgme nt i s not void and it may not be attacke d at any time. I nstead, acc ording to the State, the judgme nt is mere ly voidable and it may only be attacke d within the time lim itations established by section 2-1401.

-16-¶ 95 Apply ing this rule in the case at bar, the State contends that s ev er al of the ar g uments

raised in resp ondent’s petition, including both of responde nt’s principal contentions
reg arding the publication notices, do not r est “on the fac e of the rec ord alone” but, instea d,

are depende nt on evidenc e outside the rec o rd t h at was introduced in the hearings on responde nt’s section 2

- 1 4 0 1 p e ti ti o n

. Thus, the State maintains that responde nt’s contentions challeng e “the judgme nt as voidable, rathe r than void,” and those contentions are subject to the time limit s established by section 2-1401. Further, the State asserts that responde nt’s section 2-1401 pe tition was not filed within the applicable statutory time limi t imposed by section 2-1401. There fore

, a c c o r d in g to th e St ate , r e s p o n d e n t’ s c o ntentions are impermissible collater al attac ks on the defa ult judgment. ¶ 96 The majority does not addre ss or acknow ledg e the State’s arg ument th a t th eju risdictional defe cts alleg ed by responde nt do not appea r on the fac e of the rec ord. Given the importance of t he arg ument in defining the s co p e of t he is sues we must consider, I would addre ss it. I would reje ct the arg ument beca use this court has held th at the absolute verity rule is inapplicable wher e, as here

, the moving party alleg es that notice was never rec eived and no third party

has ac ted in relianc e on the judg ment: “I f no rig hts of third parties have intervene d, the def endant may

have the judgme nt set aside even if the rec ord shows aff irmatively t hat he was serve d or that he
appea red. ( Cassidy v. Automatic Time Stamp Co. [,] 185 I ll. 431; Kochman v. O’Neill

, 202 I ll. 110; Hilt v. Heimbe rger , 235 I ll. 235; Owens v. Ramstead

, 22 I ll. 161.)” Janove v. Bac on , 6 I ll. 2d 245, 249 (1955).
See also In re Estate of Y

oung , 414 I ll. 525, 535 (1953) (“The succe ss of a collater al attack
upon a judgme nt g ener ally depends on a re cord showing lack of jurisdiction; [citations] an attack chargi n g want of notice and opportunity to be hear d, howeve r, may be based on evidenc e dehors the rec ord

. ”)

. T h i s exception to the absolute verity rule allowing the introduction of extrinsi c evidenc e rests on the “inher ent power of a court to examine its own

rec ords and to expunge a judgme nt if satisfied that the judgme nt w as rende red without due notice to a party ” (Restateme nt (Second) of J udg ments § 77, cmt. a, at 224 (1982))
, as well

as the unfairne ss of forbidding a litigant from contesting a judgme nt for wh i ch h e or she

never rec eived n o t i ce (see Village of Algonquin v. Lowe
, 2011 I L App (2d) 100603, ¶ 24 (noting that it is problematic to apply the absolute ve rity

rule when persona l jurisdiction is at issue)). ¶ 97 Respondent’s challeng e to the o rd er terminating his pare ntal rig hts was broug ht in the

same court which enter ed that order and no third-party reli ance is at issue. I n these circ umstances, the absolute verity rule is inapplicable. Acc ording ly

, contra ry to the State’s 3

T he Rest at ement (Se con d) of J udgm ent s re j ect s the abs olu te verit y r ule

, st at ing th at “t he 3

m ode rn rul e is tha t a j ud gm ent m ay be impeach ed by eviden ce tha t con tr adi ct s the re cor d in the

a c t i o n ” a n d t hat a li ti gant’ s re li anc e on suc h eviden ce is si m ply a re le vant fa ct or “i n det er m ini ng whet her the for um is app rop ri at e for hea ri ng the at ta ck.” Rest at ement (Se con d) of J udgm ent s § 77,
cmts. a, b (19 82)

. Beca use an exc ept ion to the abs olu te verit y r ule app li es in thi s cas e, the re is no

nee d t o co nsi der th e c ont inu ing viabi li ty of the abs olu te veri ty rul e i ts el f i n I ll ino is

.
-17-assertions, all of the contentions raised in responde nt’s section 2-1401 petition are proper ly

befor e us.

¶ 98 I I . Validity of the Servic es by

Publication ¶ 99 When pe rsonal jurisdiction is obtained in a proce eding under the J uvenile Court A ct of 1987 (705 IL CS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2006)), that jurisdiction continues until the matter is resolved. In re M.W

. , 232 I ll. 2d at 428-29; In re Abner P.
, 347 I ll. App. 3d 903, 908 (2004). Thus, when persona l jurisdiction is obtained prior to adjudica t i o n , it is not nece ssary to

ree stablish that jurisdiction prior to termination. Rely ing on this rule, the appellate court below held that the S eptember 2006 service by publication wa s v al i d and, therefor e, there

was no ne ed to addr ess the validity of the Nove mber 2007 publication notice:
“We find the trial court obtained persona l jurisdiction over respon d en t b y publication prior to adjudication. Since servi ce by publication was valid, the court acquir ed persona l jurisdiction over responde nt for the entire proce eding

. In re Abner P.
, 347 I ll. App. 3d 903, 908, 807 N.E.2d 1145, 1150 (2 0 0 4 ). Thus, we need not addre ss the issue of service by publication at the time of terminatio n

. ” No. 4-10- 0267, slip op. at 14 (unpublished order under Supre me Court Rule 23). ¶ 100 Be fore this court, b o t h re s pondent and the State rec og nize that responde nt was twice

serve d by publication and that the validity of the November 2007 notice will only be at issue if responde nt can first establish the i nvalidity of t he September 2006 notice. The majority

, howeve r, does not distin gu i s h b et wee n the two publication notices. I nstead, the majority conducts its analy sis as if responde nt was serve d only once and then, at the conclusion of its opinion, holds that this single service by publication was invalid beca use no diligent inquiry

was conducte d. Supra ¶ 85 (“ Be cause the requisite diligent inquiry was not pe rfor med, the State’s servic e by

publication was de fec tive and did not confe r personal jurisdiction to the trial court, r endering its judg ment void.”). ¶ 101 I n so holding, the ma jority relies on f

acts that have no rele vance to the adequa cy of the September 2006 notice. For example, the majority n o t es t h at a separ ate child support complaint was filed ag ainst responde nt in McL ean County while the termination action was proce eding

. The majority conclude s that the Depa rtment failed to follow up on persona l information reg arding responde nt attache d to the complai n t an d fo r this rea son, as well as others, that the Depa

rtment fa i l ed to conduct the require d diligent inquiry

. Supra ¶ 80. Howeve r, the child support complaint was not filed until November 6, 2007, over a y ear afte r the first publication notice was issued. Thus, the complaint ca n h av e n o bearing on the validity of the diligent inquiry conducte d prior to the issuance of the September 2006 notice. ¶ 102 The validity of the two publication notices should be addre ssed s ep ar at el y

. L ike the appellate court, I would first consider whether the September 2006 notice was valid and then, if nec essary , consider the validity of the Nove mber 2007 notice

.

¶ 103 A. Validity of Service by

Publication in S eptember 2006 ¶ 104 Section 2 -1 4 0 1 o f t h e C o d e o f C i v il Procedur e (735 I L CS 5/2-1401 (West 2008))

-18-establishes a compre hensive statutory proce dure for vacating a final judgme nt older than 30

day s. See Peop l e v. Vincent
, 226 I ll. 2d 1, 7 (2007). “Relief under section 2-1401 is predi ca t ed u p o n proof, by a preponde ranc e of evidenc e, of a defe nse or claim that would have prec luded entry of the judgme nt in the orig inal action and diligenc e in both discovering the defe nse or claim and prese nting the petition.” Id. at 7-8 (citing Smith v. Airoom, Inc.
, 114 I ll. 2d 209 (1986))

. The State does not dispute that responde nt’s contention that the trial court lacke d persona l jurisdiction “substitutes for and negat es t he need to alleg e a meritorious defe nse and due diligenc e.” Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education , 201 I ll. 2d 95, 104 (2002). ¶ 105 R es p ondent maintains that the September 2006 service by pub l i ca t i o n wa s i n v al i d beca use the Depa

rtment failed to conduct a diligent inquiry prior to issuing that notice, as require d under se ction 2-16(2) of the J uvenile Court A ct. That provision sta tes, in releva nt part: “(2) Where a responde nt’s usual place of abode is not known, a diligent inquiry shall be made to asce rtain the respondent’s curr ent and last known addre ss. The Depa rtment of Children and Fa mily Service s shall adopt rules d ef i n ing the require ments for conducting a diligent sear ch to locate pare nts of min o rs i n the custody of the Depa

rtment. I f, afte r diligent inquiry made at any time within the
prec eding 12 months, the usual place of abode cannot be rea sonably asce rtained, or if responde nt is conce aling his or her wher eabouts to avoid service of proces s , petitioner’s attorney shall file an aff idavit at the office of the cler k of court in which the ac tion is pending showing that responde nt on due inquiry cannot be found or is

con cealing his or her wher eabouts so that proce ss cannot be serve d. The aff idavit shall state the last known addre ss o f t h e re s p o ndent. The aff idavit shall also state what eff orts wer e made to eff

ectua te service

. Wit hin 3 day s of rec eipt of the aff idavit, the cler k shall issue publication service as provided below. The cler k shall also send
a copy there of by mail addre ssed t o eac h responde nt listed in the affidavit at hi s or her last known addre ss. The cler k of the court as soon as p o s s i b le shall cause publication to be made once in a newspa per of g ener al circ ulation in the county wher e the a ction is pending .” 705 IL CS 405/ 2-16(2) (West 2006). ¶ 106 The circ uit c ourt reje cted responde nt’s contention afte r holding an evidentiary hearing. I n this posture, the circ uit court’s judgme nt is revie wed to determine whether it is ag ainst the manifest weig ht of the evidenc e. See S.I. S ecuriti es v. Powless

, 403 I ll. App. 3d 426, 440 (2010). A decision is ag ainst the manifest weig ht of the evidenc e only if the opposite

4 conclusion is clea

rly evident. In re Cutright , 233 I ll. 2d 474, 488 (2009). ¶ 107 The portion of the rec ord rele vant to the first publication notice establishes the following

.

T he m aj ori ty app li es a de novo st and ar d of re view. Supr a ¶ 60. De novo re view would be 4
app rop ri at e if the ci rc uit cou rt h a d d e ci ded the is sue wit hout an eviden ti ar y hea ri ng. See
, e.g. , Commer ce Trus t Co. v. Air 1st Avi ati on Cos.
, 366 I ll

. App. 3d 135, 140 (20 06) (“ Wh er e, as her e, the ci rc uit cou rt dec ide d the is sue of j uri sdi ct ion wit hout an eviden ti ar y hea ri ng, we re view the cou rt ’s dec is ion de n ovo .”)

.
-19-On September 7, 2006, a petition for adjudication of war dship was filed in the circ uit court

of McL ean County which identified responde nt as the fathe r of two of Tony a Findley ’s four minor daug hters. The petiti o n incorre ctly listed responde nt’s addre ss as “Sherida n Correc tional Center, Sheridan, I L .” ¶ 108 Shannon Stanfill, the Depa rtment investigator ini t i al l y as s i g ned to the case , spoke to Findley about responde nt. Findley told Stanfill that responde nt lived in the Chicag o are a but that she did not know his ad dress. Findley also g ave Stanfill an incorre ct date of birth for responde nt. Stanfill made no other eff orts to loc ate responde nt. A t the shelter car e hearing,

no evidenc e was pre sented re g arding responde nt, his location, or eff orts made to find him. ¶ 109 On S ep t em b er 1 1
, 2 0 0 6, an aff idavit in support of service by publication, which i s require d under section 2-16(2)
, was filed by McL ean County Assistant State’s Attorney Madeline McL auchlan. I n the aff idavit, McL auchla n attested th at r e s p ondent’s addre ss could not “ be asce rtained upon diligent inquiry ” and, thus, proce ss could not be serve d upon him “either persona lly or by certified mail.” The aff idavit did not state what eff orts h ad been made by the Depa rtment to locate r espondent. ¶ 110 On September 19, 2 0 0 6
, t h e M cLean C o u n t y ci rc u i t cl er k issued a “notice f or publication” to responde nt. T h e notice was published in the Blooming ton Pantag raph the same da y

. ¶ 111 On October 11, 2006, a “Certific ation of Comprehensive Dilige nt Searc h” was issued by the Depa rtment’s “Dili g ent Searc h Service Center.” The certification indicated that a computer se arc h had bee n conducte d of 14 addr ess databa ses for r espondent’s na me. ¶ 112 On October 24, 2006, an adjudication hearing was held. At this hearing, the circ uit c ourt found that it had persona l jurisdiction over responde nt, throug h service by publication, and that responde nt had def

aulted by not appea

ring afte r being serve d. ¶ 113 Ba sed on the forego i n g, it appea rs that the only inquiry conducte d by the Depa rtment prior to the issuance of the September 2006 publication notice was that of the investiga tor, Stanfill, asking Findley for responde nt’s addre ss. Nothing in the rec ord i n d icates that any attempts wer e made t o p u rs u e o ther rea dily available are as of inquiry prior to serving responde nt by publication, such as a s kin g F indley for responde nt’s telephone number, asking the m inors and Findley for the names of responde nt’s rela tives, or asking Findley whether she rec eived support from responde nt or had an exis ting child support case

. Further, althoug h the S tate stresse s that the Depa rtment ran a

computer se arc h for r espondent’s address, that

sear ch was conducte d a month afte r McL auchla n filed the aff idavit in support of publication, and three wee ks afte r the notice was actu al l y p u b l ished. The computer sear ch thus fell outside section 2-16(2) ’s re quirement that the dilig ent inquiry be undertaken within the 12 months “pre ceding ” the filing of the affidavit supporting publication. I n addition, the

co m p u t er sear ch was run with responde nt’s first name misspelled as “Da rryl,” rathe r than “Da ry l.” ¶ 114 Un d er t h es e fac ts, I would hold that the circ uit court’s finding that the Depar t m en t conducte d the diligent inquiry require d befor e issuing public ati on notice under section 2- 16(2) was a g ainst the manifest weig ht of the evidenc e. Acc ording ly

, I would conclude that the September 2006 publication notice was issued in violation of section 2-16(2) and failed

-20-to confe r persona l jurisdiction on the trial court. I n light of this conclusion, I would also find

that it is necessary

to consider the validityof the Nove mber 2007 publica tion.

¶ 115 B. V alidity of Service by

Publication in November 2007 ¶ 116 Respondent acknow led ges t h at h e wa s s er v ed b y publication a second time, after adjudication, in November of 2007, and that the Depa rtment made additional eff orts to locate him prior to the issuance of that notice. Respondent does not contend that these eff orts failed
to satisfy the diligent inquiry require ment under section 2-16(2)

. I nstead, responde nt arg ues that the November 2007 service by pu b lication was invalid beca use the McL ean County State’s Attorney and the Depa rtment had obtained actua l knowl ed g e of his location in a separ ate child support case that was being pursued at the same time as the termination action. Be cause section 2-16(2) permits publication notice only “[w]here a responde nt’s usual place of abode is not known” (705 I L CS 405/2-16(b) (West 2006)), responde nt maintains that the November 2007 service by public at i o n was invalid. The appellate court did not rea ch this issue since, a s noted, the court concluded tha t the September 2006 notice was va lid. ¶ 117 Despite the fac t that r espondent does not r aise a dilige nt inquiry arg ument with r espec t to the second publication notice, the majority analy zes the validity of the notice solely on that basis. Be cause this is not the arg ument responde nt is making

, I would not addre ss it. Further,

even if it wer e appropriate to raise the diligent inquiry arg ument sua sponte , for the following

rea sons I cannot ag ree with the majority ’s conclusion that the Depa rtment failed to conduct such an inquiry

with respec t to the November 2007 notice. ¶ 118 After the adjudication hearing, the Depa rtment ran two additional computer sear ches for responde nt–one in Dec ember of 2006 and one in J u l y o f 2007. The first sear ch returne d a possible a d dress on Union Street in Chicag o, which responde nt later identified as his pare nts’ home. Nanc y Murrah, a Depa rtment case worke r, sent a letter to that addre ss but no response

was re ceive d. ¶ 119 The second sear ch returne d, in ad d i t i o n t o the addre ss on Union Street, an addre ss on Bla ckstone Stree t in Chicag o, which respondent later identified as a

former residenc e, and

an addre ss in L ake Villa, I llinois

, which was later identified as the home of responde nt’s

s i s t er. L etters wer e sent to eac h of these addre sses, but no response was rec eived. L au ra Seidelman, a social worke r, fi l ed a “Dili g ent Searc h” report with the circ uit court in September of

2007 which included the results of the se cond sea rch. ¶ 120 The majority conclude s that these eff orts did not satisfy the diligent inquiry require ment of section 2-16(2)

. Acc ording to the m ajority

, there wer e at least four ad ditional steps that the Depa rtment could have undertaken to locate responde nt an d b ec ause the Depa rtment failed to ta

ke these steps, the inquiry was defic ient. Howeve r, eac h of the proposed actions identified by

the majority

is problematic. ¶ 121 First, the major ity states that “[t] he De partment wa s awa re tha t respondent lived in the Chicag o are a, but i t s em p l o y ee s did not visit or inquire at any of the potential addre ss matches in the are a.” Supra ¶ 76. The majority cites no authority for the proposition that the Depa rtment is require d, under se ction 2-16(2) , to phy sically visit t he potential addresses it

uncover s in order to succe ssfully perf orm a diligent inquiry

. I n my view, this require ment is

-21-unduly burdensome a nd I

disag ree with its i mpositi on here

. ¶ 122 Second, the majority states that the Depa rtment was also “informe d that Findley and the minors wer e rec eiving Social Security benef its, but no one made any at tempt to verify Findley ’s source o f i n come or reque st her to authorize a rele ase of that information. Arg uably

, the failure to follow up on th e S o cial Security information was a missed opportunity to lear n if responde nt was a source of that income and to acq u i re his contac t information.” Supra ¶ 77. Acc ording to the majority

, “[t] here is no explanation in the rec ord why the Depa

rtment chose not to pursue further inquiry into” this information. Supra ¶ 78. I disag ree

. ¶ 123 The circ uit court addre ssed t h e i s s u e o f Social Security benef its in its ruling deny ing responde nt’s section 2-1401 pe tition, s tating:
“T h ere was an issue with respe ct t o the children rec eiving Social Security benefi t s throug h [respondent] and whether or not there was a

diligent e ffort made to pursue that information. The ev i d en ce that the Court hear d was uncontra dicted that the mother said she was g etting Social Security benef i t s for the kids, but there was no indication from any of the case worke rs involved that th e chil dren wer e rec eiving benef its from the fathe r. And even if there had been, the evid en ce wa s t h at the Depa rtment would not have been able to acc ess that i n fo rmation without a rele ase [from responde nt]
, would not have been able to g arne r any information reg arding his wher eabouts without that rele ase.”
As the State points out, Findley told the Depa rtment’s investigator, Stanfill, that she had bipolar disorder and that she and one of her children rec eived Social Security benef its. Thus, there was no rea son for Stanfill to ask Findley whether she was rec eiving depende nt benef its throug h responde nt. I disag ree , there fore

, with the majority ’s conclusion that the Depa rtment

was re quired to investig ate F indley ’s Social Secur ity benef its. ¶ 124 Third, the majority states that responde nt “called Findley during a supervised visitation but no effort was made to obtain respondent’ s contac t inf ormation during that incident” or there afte r. Supra ¶ 79. Howeve r, acc ording to a perma nency repor t prepa red by Seidelman, who was pr esent during the call, F indley denied knowing wher e re spondent was or how to

rea ch him and stated tha t she did not have a telephone numbe r for

responde nt or his sist er, the person who had actua lly place d the call on responde nt’s behalf

. Further, Assistant State’s Attorney McL auchla n testified at a perma nency hearing held on October 31, 2007
, that Findley wa s apparently able to contac t responde nt but that she chose “not to reve al any further information about him.” Thus, the majority ’s assertion that the Depa rtment made no further inquiries of Findley reg arding responde nt’s location is incorre ct. The Depa rtment did make e fforts to contact re spondent throug h Findley , but Findley ref used to coope rate

. ¶ 125 Finally

, the ma jor ity conclude s that the Depa rtment could have taken further action base d on the sepa

rate child support action that wa s filed ag ainst responde nt. The majority states: “I n addition, the complaint in the s epar ate child support action indicated that responde nt had voluntarily acknow ledg ed his paternity of Dar. C

. under se ction 12

o f the Vit al R ecor ds Act (410 I L CS 535/12 (West 2006)). The complaint i n cl u d ed

a case detail repor

t f rom the I llinois Depa

rtment of Public Aid, listi ng responde nt’s

-22-date of birth, Social Security number, and phy sical description. I t al s o i d entified responde nt’s mailing address as 702 Sutton Co u rt, L ake Villa, I llinois

. Seidelman,
t h e m i n o rs’ case worke r i n the t ermination case, si g ned and verifie d the complaint

, but otherwise conducte d no followup o n r e s p o n d e n t’ s p e r s o n a l in f o r ma tion contained in that report. Ag ain, the rec ord is silent on why the Depa rtment conducte d no further inquiry .” Supra ¶ 80. ¶ 126 I disag ree with the majority ’s conclusion that the child support complaint is rele vant to the issue of whe ther a

diligent inquiry

was c onducted. The complaint in the support action

was not filed until November 6, 2007, four day s afte r the aff idavit for service by publication in the termination case had been filed. There is no basis in section 2 -1 6 (2 ) for requiring further diligent inquiry on the part of the Depa rtment afte r the aff

idavit has been filed. In re 5 A.S.B.
, 293 I ll. App. 3d 836, 843 (1997) (“We know of no prec edent that would require the State to conduct a second d i l i gen t i n quiry afte r i t had completed its initial diligent inquiry pursuant to the Ac t.”). ¶ 127 Further, as the majority itself notes earlier in its opinion, at some point, “the child support prog ram provided Seidelman with a L ake Villa addre ss for respondent, she mailed a letter
to that addre ss, but t h er e wa s no response .” Supra ¶ 30. Thus, contra ry to the majority ’s 6

s t at em ent, the Department di d follow up on the personal information attached to the chil d support complaint. ¶ 128 I n light of the fore g oing, I disag ree with the majority ’s conc lusion that the Department failed to conduct a diligent inquiry prior to serving responde nt by publication in November of 2007

. Howeve r, for the rea sons set forth below, I ag ree that the judgme nt terminating responde nt’s pare ntal rig hts must be set aside. ¶ 129 On No v em b er 2
, 2 0 0 7
, Assistant State’s Attorney McL auchlan filed the aff idavit in support of the second service by publication in the termination case

. The aff idavit stated that responde nt’s addre ss was unknown. ¶ 130 Four day s later, on November 6, 2007, an unidentified McL ean County assistant State’s Attorney filed a complaint for child support ag ainst responde nt in a separ ate action in the circ uit court of McL ean County

. As noted, attache d to the complaint was the case detail
report which listed responde nt’s mailing addre ss as his sister’s home in L ake Villa, I llinois

.

Wi th re spe ct to the Sept ember 2006 not ic e, the m aj ori ty is pro per ly cr it ic al of the Sta te for 5

re lying o n a c o mp u t er sea rc h con duc te d by the Depa rt m ent af te r the af fi davit in sup por t of publ ic at ion had bee n fi le d. Supr a ¶ 69. Yet
, wit h re spe ct to the Novem ber 2007 not ic e, the m aj ori ty

re li es on the complai nt f or chi ld sup por t whic h, as not ed abo ve, was fi le d af te r the af fi davit for publ ic at ion was fi le d.

Sei del m an si gned and verif ie d the complai nt in the chi ld sup por t act ion on Oct obe r 9, 2007

. 6 T he “ca se det ai l re por t” fr om the Depa rt m ent of Publ ic Aid, the doc ume n t w h i c h con ta ine d

re spo nde nt’ s per son al inf ormati on and whic h was at ta che d to the complai nt, was dat ed Oct obe r 29, 2007

. T he cas e d e t a i l r e p ort was thu s at ta che d to the chi ld sup por t complai nt, pre sumably by the

ass is ta nt Sta te ’s Att orn ey, af te r the complai nt was s i gne d by Sei del m an. I t is not cl ear , the re for e, when Sei del m an bec ame awar e tha t the V il la Par k add re ss had bee n use d in the chi ld sup por t act ion

.
-23-¶ 131 On November 15, 2007, notice to responde nt of the petition to terminate pare ntal rig hts

was published. ¶ 132 On De ce m b er 7, 2007, Assistant State’s Attorney Dea n Eng elbre cht sent a letter t o responde nt in car e of a L ake County health department trea tment cente r located in Gra y slake, I llinois

. The letter ref

ere nced a telephone conver sation, held on Dec ember 5, 2007, betwee n responde nt, his case worke r and En gel b re cht, and stated that an ag ree d support order was enclose d. The letter asked responde nt to sign the ag ree d support o rd er an d return it to Eng elbre cht for entry by the circ uit court. The rec ord does not indi ca t e how Eng elbre cht acquir ed the Gr ay slake a ddress. ¶ 133 On Dec ember 19, 2007, the circ uit court enter ed an order in the termination case finding that responde nt was in default and that he was unfit on the g rounds alleg ed in the termination petition. ¶ 134 On J anuary 3, 2008, the circ uit court in the support action en t er ed t h e agr ee d ch ild support order . The orde r wa s serve d on responde nt at the Gra y slake a ddress. ¶ 135 On Marc h 7, 2008, three months afte r Eng lebre cht had contac ted responde nt, the circ uit
court e ntere d a fina l judgment terminating r espondent’s pa renta l rig hts. ¶ 136 Ba sed on these fac ts, responde nt contends th at th e November 2007 service by publication

was invalid be cause the McL ean County State’s Attorney not only knew wher e responde nt

was locat ed

, b u t had, in fac t, communicated with him three months prior to entry of the judgme nt terminating his parenta l rig hts. ¶ 137 The State maintains, howeve r, that once the aff idavit was filed on November 2, 2007, and the publication notice issued, neither the Depa rtment nor the State’s Attorney had any further obliga tion to investigate under section 2-16(2)
, “re g ardle ss of what any one may have lear ned there afte r.” I ag ree with the State that the obliga tion to conduct a diligent inquiry ended with the filing of the a ffidavit. B ut that is not t he question bef ore us. ¶ 138 The question here is whether servic e b y p u b l i ca t i o n wi l l be considere d valid and sufficie nt to confe r persona l jurisdiction o n the circ uit court under section 2-16(2) wher e, afte r notice is published, but sever al mont h s p ri o r to the entry of a defa ult judgme nt terminating pare ntal rig hts, the prosec uting State’s Attor ney is in actua l contac t with the
pare nt. I believe the answe r to this question is “no.” ¶ 139 S ec tion 2-16(2) provides that service by publication is only permis s i b l e “[ w] h er e a responde nt’s usual place of ab o d e i s not known.” 705 I L CS 405/2-16(2) (West 2008). Further, the interest at stake here

, the termination of pare ntal rig h t s , i s quite high and constructive notice is, as a g ener al rule, disfavore d. A revie wing court may presume that the leg islature did not intend absurd, inconvenient, or unjust conseque nces. People v. Marshall

, 242 I ll. 2d 285, 293 (2011). The Gene ral Assembly could not, in my view, have intended that publication notice stand as sufficie nt in these circ umstances. Acc ording ly

, I would hold that wher e, as here

, the prosec uting State’s Attorney is i n ac t u al contact with a pare nt sever al months prior to the entry of a defaul t judgme nt terminating pare ntal rig hts, a previously issued publication notice is insufficient, under section 2-16(2)
, to confe r pers o n a l juris d ic ti o n on the circ uit court. ¶ 140 The State maintains, howeve r, t h at ev en i f E n gel brec ht was in actua l contac t with

-24-responde nt, he was not the assistant State’s Attorney of rec ord in the termination proce eding

and, therefor e, the McL ean County State’s Attorney

cannot be char g ed with knowledg e of responde nt’s location in that action. I disag ree

. ¶ 141 There is no dispute that the McL ean County State’s Attorney was the prosec uting office r of both the termination proce eding and the child support action. There is also no dispute that Eng elbre cht and McL auchla n, the assistant State’s Attorney responsible for the termination
proce eding

, wer e age nts of t he McL ean C o u n t y S tate’s Attorney

. The “g ener al rule is that

a principal is aff

ecte d with knowledg e of all materia l fac ts of which his or her ag ent rec eives notice or acq u i res knowledg e while acting in the course of the ag ent’s employ ment and within the sc ope of his or he r authority .” 1 I ll. L . and Prac

. Agenc y § 54, at 556 (2010). A s the Restatement e x plains:

“I mputation char g es a principal with the leg al conseque nces of having notice of

a m at er ial fac t, whether or not such fact would be useful and welcome. I f an age n t has actua l knowledg e of a fac t, the principal is char g ed with the leg al conseque nces of having actua l knowledg e of the fac t.” Restatement (Third) of Ag ency § 5.03, cmt. b, at 361 (2006). The State offe rs no arg ument as to why the rules of ag ency law should be inapplicable here

. Acc ording ly

, under these fac ts, I would hold that the November 2007 publication notice was invalid and fa iled to confe r per sonal jurisdiction on the trial court. ¶ 142 For these rea sons, I ag ree that the order terminating responde nt’s pare ntal rig hts must be set aside.

¶ 143 J USTI CE FREEMAN joins in this special conc urre nce.

¶ 144 J USTI CE THEI S, specially concur ring : ¶ 145 I co n cu r i n t h e re s u lt rea ched by the majority and ag ree that the September 2006 publication notice was invali d b ec au se the I llinois Depa rtment of Children and Fa mily Service s (De partment) failed to conduct a diligent inquirybefor e that notice w as issued as require d under section 2-16(2) of the J uvenile Court Act (Ac t) (705 I L CS 405/2-16(2) (West 2006)). I write separa tely beca use I disa gre e with the m ajority ’s t reatment of respondent’s
arg ument conce rning the sec ond publication notice that wa s issued in November 2007. ¶ 146 The majority conclude s that beca use the State and the Depa rtment failed to perf

orm the requisite diligent inquiry under section 2-16(2)
, the State’s attempts at service by publication

wer e def ective a nd did not confe r per sonal jurisdiction on the trial court. Responde nt does
not contend, howeve r, that the additional eff orts made to locate him prior to the issuance of the second p u blication notice in November 2007 failed to satisfy the diligent inquiry require ment under the Act. I nstead, he contends that the publication notice issued prior to the termination proce eding was not valid beca use the Depa

rtment had knowledg e of his addre ss befor e the notice was pu b l i s h ed o n November 15, 2007. Consequently

, responde nt arg ues that the publication notice was invalid beca use section 2-16(2) does not authorize service by publication wher e a r espondent’s a ddress is known. I ag ree

.

-25-¶ 147 As the majority rec og nizes, when persona l service under section 2-15 (705 I L CS 405/2-

15 (West 2006 )) ca nnot be acc omplished, the Act provides for two other mecha nisms for service of summons. Secti o n 2 -1 6 (1 ) allows for service by certified mail when persona l service under section 2-15 is not made within a rea sonabl e t i m e o r it appea rs that the responde nt resides outside of the state. 705 I L CS 405/2-16(1) (West 2006). Section 2-16(2) allows, as a l as t resort, for service by publication. 705 I L CS 405/2-16(2) (West 2006). Spe ci fi cally

, section 2-16(2) authorizes service by publication, in pertinent part, when the following require ments are met: “Where a responde nt’s usual place of abode is not known, a diligent inquiry shall be made to asce rtain th e re s pondent’s curr ent and last known addre ss. *** I f, afte r diligent inquiry made at any time within the prec eding 12 months, the usual place of abode cannot be rea sonably asce rtained, or if responde nt i s co n ce aling his or her wher eabouts to avoid serviceof proc ess, petitioner’s attorney shall file an a ffidavit
at the office of the cler

k of court in which the action i s pending showing that responde nt on due inquiry cannot be found or is conce aling his or her w here abouts

so that proce ss c annot be ser ved. The aff idavit sha ll state the last known addre ss of the responde nt. The aff

idavit shall also state what eff orts wer e made t o ef

fe ctuate service .” 705 I

L CS 405/ 2-16(2) (West 2006).
I f the notice of

the termination proc eeding that was published on November 15, 2007, was valid under section 2-16(2)
, the trial court would have acquired persona l jurisdiction over responde nt for the entire termination proce eding

. See In re M.W

. , 232 I ll. 2d 408, 429 (2009) (once persona l jurisdiction over a pare nt is obtained, that jurisdiction continues until the matter is re solved). ¶ 148 I n this case , McL ean County Assistant State’s Attorney Madeline McL auchla n filed the aff idavit for service by publication re gar d i n g the petition to terminate pare ntal rig hts on November 2, 2007, which stated that responde nt’s addre ss was unknown. On November 6, 2007, an unnamed McL ean County assistant State’s Attorney fi led the complaint ag ainst responde nt in the separ ate child support action. The complaint included the case detail report from the I lli n o i s De p ar tment of Public Aid, dated October 29, 2007, which identified responde nt’s mailing addre ss in L ake Villa, I llinois

. The oblige e in the child support action

was “I llinois -F oster Care, DCFS.” The minor’s case worke r in the terminati on case , L aura Seidelman, had a lso signed a nd verifie d the complaint, dated O ctober 9, 2007, in the child support matter. On November 8, 2007, the summons in the child support case was issued for responde nt at the addre ss in L ake Villa. On November 15, 2007, notice to responde nt of the petition to terminate pare ntal rig hts was published. On November 19, 2007, four day s afte r the notice to responde nt was published in this case , the sheriff attempted service of the issued

summons in the child support case at the L ake Villa addre ss, but returne d it as unserve d. The sheriff wrote on the summons that an unidentified re lative claimed tha t respondent did not live there and did not provide a ny additional information about re spondent. ¶ 149 I n my view, the McL ean County State’s Attorney ’s office and the Depa rtment could not repr esent in the child support action that it had knowledg e of responde nt’s addre ss, but in this action serve him by publication. Although the attempt at service in the child support action

was ultimately unsucce ssful, it was not returne d as unserve d until four days after publication

-26-n o t i ce i n the instant case

. Section 2-16(2) of the Act does not authorize service b y

publication wher e 1a responde nt’s addre ss is known. Whil e I rec og nize that section 2-16(2) is silent as to what occur s when the State and the Depa rtment acquir e k n o wl ed ge of a responde nt’s addre ss subsequent to the filing of the aff idavit, I decline to rea d into the statute that they may simply disreg ard knowledg e of a responde nt’s addre ss that may be discovere d prior to the date that notice of a proce eding is published. See, e.g. , In re D.D.
, 196 I ll. 2d 405, 418-19 (2001) (the cardi n al ru l e of statutory interpre tation is to g ive effec t to the i ntent of the leg islature, while presuming the leg islature did not intend to cre at e absurdity

, inconvenienc e, or i n

j u s tice); see also In re A.S.B.
, 293 I ll. App. 3d 836, 843 (1997) (the St ate ’s responsibility under section 2-16(2) was complete afte r it conducte d a diligent inqui r y in sear ch of th e m i n o r’ s fathe r, m emorialized that inquiry in an affidavit, requested noti ce by publication, and published that notice in the local paper ). Consequently

, under the unique circ umstances in this case , I would find that beca use the State and the Depa rtment repr esente d that they had knowledg e of responde nt’s addre ss in the child support action prior
to the publication notice on November 15, 2007, that notice was invalid and failed to confe r persona l jurisdiction on the trial court. ¶ 150 Fo r t h ese rea sons, I concur with the result of the majority in reve rsing t h e ap p el l at e court’s judgment; vacating the t rial co u rt’s order t erminating responde nt’s pare ntal rig hts; and re manding for f

urther pr ocee dings.

-27-