Trial court correctly ruled that a child, conceived during the parties' marriage but born after they were divorced, was the child of petitioner's ex-husband.

The 1st District Appellate Court, 1st Division, has affirmed a ruling by Cook County Circuit Judge James G. Donegan.

When Sheila Mannix and Daniel Sheetz were divorced in 1993, their dissolution judgment stated that the parties had adopted no children and that Mannix was "not now pregnant." Seven months after the divorce, Mannix gave birth to a son. Sheetz was listed as the father on the birth certificate, which was signed by both Sheetz and Mannix.

In 2005, Mannix began post-divorce litigation to address Sheetz's "non-compliance with the basic parental financial obligations" of the 1993 divorce judgment. Mannix also filed a petition seeking an increase in child support and the trial court ordered that Sheetz's support obligation be increased to $1,000 per month.

In March 2005 hearing, the attorney who had been appointed child representative informed the court that the "second child" was not covered by the 1993 divorce judgment.

In January 2006, Mannix filed a pro se petition in Lake County to determine parent-child relationship under the Illinois Parentage Act and she sought an order declaring that Sheetz is the father of the child born after the divorce. In her petition, Mannix stated that the child was conceived during the parties' marriage.

She alleged that since the child's birth in 1993, he had resided with her but that in October 2005, a Cook County judge transferred temporary custody of the boy to Sheetz. She alleged that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to transfer custody of the boy to Sheetz and she asked to be awarded temporary and permanent custody of the child. In March 2006, Sheetz was allowed to file a petition in Cook County to determine the child's paternity.

Sheetz sought an order making the determination that he was the natural father of the parties' second child on the basis that a man is presumed to be the natural father if the child were born or conceived during the marriage.

Mannix responded by arguing that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to modify the parties' previous dissolution judgment by determining the child's parentage. She also argued that her prior petition to determine a parent-child relationship filed in Lake County barred Sheetz's petition in Cook County.

The trial court in May 2006, denied Mannix's motion to dismiss Sheetz's parentage action. The court said that Sheetz's petition to establish paternity was not brought under the Parentage Act but was filed "under the petition to establish that the child born after the divorce, conceived before the divorce, is a child of this relationship."

In July 2006, the trial court found that the child was a child of the parties' marriage "having been conceived during the marriage" even though he was born after the divorce.

The court declared the child to be the son of Sheetz. In her interlocutory appeal, Mannix argued that the circuit court lacked authority to determine the parentage of the son because there is no statutory authority in the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which grants the circuit court the power to hear parentage proceedings in post-judgment matters.

She also argued that there is no provision in the Parentage Act conferring authority on the trial court in this case to make a parentage determination where the child wasn't in existence at the time of the divorce. The appeals court affirmed the trial court and rejected Mannix's argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in finding that the second child was a child of the parties' marriage.

The appeals court said that in keeping with section 9(a) of the Parentage Act, the trial court correctly applied the provisions of section 5(a)(1) of the Parentage Act in rendering its decision. The court said its decision was bolstered by the parties' admissions that the child was conceived during the marriage, thereby invoking the section 5(a)(1) presumption of paternity and Mannix's admissions and Sheetz's acknowledgment that Sheetz was the father of the child.

Marriage of Sheila Mannix and Daniel Sheetz, No. 1-06-2130. Justice Robert E. Gordon wrote the court's opinion with Justices Robert Cahill and Rodolfo Garcia concurring. Released June 18.