JUSTICE BYRNE delivered the opinion of the court:

Following an adjudicatory hearing, the minor, Willie W., was adjudicated a delinquent minor,after pleading guilty to aggravated criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12--14(b)(I) (West 2002)). Thereafter, he was sentenced to an indeterminate term in the Department of Corrections, JuvenileDivision, and was required to register as a sex offender. On appeal, Willie contends that the Statefailed to exercise due diligence in locating his father and notifying him of the delinquency proceeding. We agree and, therefore, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand the cause forfurther proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The record reveals the following facts. On March 18, 2003, the State filed a petition for anadjudication of delinquency pursuant to section 5--520 of the Juvenile Court Act (Act) (705 ILCS405/5--520 (West 2002)). The petition alleged that Willie was a delinquent minor because between2000 and August 2002, he committed the offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault. The petitionrequested that an arraignment be held on March 18, 2003, and listed the names of Willie's parents,along with his mother's address. Willie's father's address was listed as "unknown." The record doesnot include a summons to either parent.

Willie's mother was present at the arraignment and detention hearing, which were held on thesame day the petition was filed. The court asked the mother if she knew the father's present address. She said that she knew the father's telephone number "by heart," that the number was a Wisconsinnumber, and that she believed that he could be reached at that number. After hearing testimony, thecourt ordered that Willie be detained and set the matter for hearing on April 4, 2003. The court feltthat, based on the allegations, various evaluations ought to be performed. The court also ordered asocial history report to be conducted by the probation department. Willie's mother was given a copyof the petition at the detention hearing.

The record includes a "Winnebago County Juvenile Probation Department Social History FileFace Sheet," filed April 3, 2003, listing the father's address in Horicon, Wisconsin. Attached to theface sheet is a social history report prepared by the probation department, which indicates that thefather provides $390 per month in court-ordered child support. The record does not indicate anyform of service upon either parent, and there is no indication that Willie's father ever appeared in anycourt proceeding.

An adjudicatory hearing was held on April 4, 2003. The public defender told the court thathe had discussed the matter with Willie and also with the mother and grandmother, who were present,and that Willie would enter a plea of guilty to the charge of aggravated criminal sexual assault. Afterappropriate admonishments, Willie admitted to the charge.

The court proceeded immediately to disposition. The State incorporated into itsrecommendations the social history report, which the probation department had filed the previous dayand which contained the father's Wisconsin address and information regarding his child supportpayments. The court accepted the recommendation of the probation department and ordered thatWillie be committed to the Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division, for an indeterminate term,and register as a sex offender.

On April 10, 2003, Willie filed a motion to reconsider and did not raise any argumentregarding the State's diligence in attempting to locate and serve his father. Willie's attorney also fileda Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (188 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)) certificate. After a hearing, the court deniedthe motion. This timely appeal followed.

On appeal, Willie's only contention is that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate himdelinquent and enter a dispositional order against him. Willie argues that the State failed to exercisedue diligence in locating his noncustodial father and notifying him of the delinquency proceeding,because the State learned the father's phone number at the arraignment and could have found thefather's address in the record before the adjudicatory hearing was held. The State counters that Williewaived the issue of due diligence in locating and notifying the father by failing to raise it prior to theadjudicatory hearing.

We first note that the doctrine of waiver is an admonition upon the parties, not a restrictionupon the jurisdiction of a reviewing court. In re C.R.H., 163 Ill. 2d 263, 274 (1994). A reviewingcourt may override considerations of waiver in furtherance of its responsibility to provide a just result. C.R.H., 163 Ill. 2d at 274. As the court noted in In re L.C.C., 167 Ill. App. 3d 670, 673 (1988),"[a]n increasing number of cases suggest the State is inattentive to the notice requirements of theAct." See also In re C.H., 277 Ill. App. 3d 32, 34 (1995). Accordingly, notwithstanding anyquestions of waiver, we choose to address the merits of the instant case.

The Act provides that the parents of a minor who is the subject of proceedings under the Acthave the right to be present at the proceedings. 705 ILCS 405/1--5(1) (West 2002). The delinquencypetition must provide the names and addresses of the minor's parents. 705 ILCS 405/5--520(2)(c)(West 2002). If any of these facts are unknown, the petition must indicate that they are unknown. 705 ILCS 405/5--520(2)(e) (West 2002); In re D.L., 299 Ill. App. 3d 269, 271 (1998).

In addition to the requirements of the Act, due process of law requires that the notice givenin a juvenile proceeding be equivalent to the constitutionally mandated notice in a criminal or civilaction. In re Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527, 549, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 1446-47 (1967). The State must use diligence in notifying the minor's parents, especially when the locationof a parent is unknown. L.C.C., 167 Ill. App. 3d at 673. When the State fails to provide propernotice to the minor and his parents, it fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the court and any subsequentorders are void. C.R.H., 163 Ill. 2d at 271.

Here, it is clear that the State failed to act with even a modicum of diligence in notifying theminor's father of the delinquency petition. The father's name was included in the petition. Themother supplied his telephone number, which she knew "by heart," and mentioned that he lived inWisconsin. He also was paying child support. If the State had exercised even a small degree ofdiligence, it could have discovered the father's address. Even the probation department appeared tohave located the father's address, which was included in the social history report, filed in the record, and presumably reviewed by the State before the adjudicatory hearing began. However, the State didnothing. Such a failure is inconsistent with the parent's right to be present and with the minor's rightto due process of law. See In re Miracle C., 344 Ill. App. 3d 1046, 1054-55 (2003) (trial court erredin finding that father was properly served by publication, and the exception applicable when thecustodial parent receives notice did not apply because father's whereabouts were not unknown to theState, based on a caseworker's report reviewed by the State indicating that he was in a correctionalfacility). Accordingly, we hold that the judgment of the trial court committing Willie to theDepartment of Corrections is void because the State failed to properly serve notice upon his father. Other cases in which courts have held that the lack of notice to the noncustodial parent wasnot fatal to the juvenile proceedings are distinguishable. In those cases, the courts cited facts that indicated that the noncustodial parent had not paid child support and that it would have been difficultto locate the noncustodial parent. Those courts found that the difficulty of locating the noncustodialparent and the lack of a significant relationship between the noncustodial parent and the child excusedthe State's failure to provide notice to the noncustodial parent. See, e.g., In re J.P.J., 109 Ill. 2d 129(1985); In re J.W., 87 Ill. 2d 56 (1981); L.C.C., 167 Ill. App. 3d 670 (1988).

We find this case similar to C.H., wherein the petition for delinquency stated the name of theminor's father but alleged that his address was unknown. The minor and his mother were personallyserved. The trial court directed Juvenile Court Services to prepare a dispositional social historyrelating to the minor. The dispositional report stated that the minor's father paid child support andthat he had been employed by the Hanna City Correctional Center for approximately 18 years. Following consideration of the report and other relevant matters, the court committed the minor tothe Department of Corrections.

On appeal, the minor argued that his right to due process of law was violated when the Statefailed to use diligence in locating his father and notifying him of the delinquency proceeding, and theState argued that the minor waived the argument by failing to raise the issue before the trial court. The appellate court rejected the State's waiver argument. The court held that the State failed toexercise diligence in locating and notifying the minor's father, because, if the State had exercised"even a small degree of diligence," it could have discovered his address, since the father had beenpaying child support and had been working at the same job for 18 years. C.H., 277 Ill. App. 3d at35.

Here, like in C.H., Willie's father had been paying child support. This fact, combined with thefact that the State was supplied with his telephone number, should have made him easy to find.Moreover, while the lack of a significant relationship may excuse the failure to notify a parent whoseaddress is unknown and not readily obtainable, it does not absolve the State of its responsibility toact diligently in serving notice upon a noncustodial parent whose address may be easily discovered. C.H., 277 Ill. App. 3d at 36. Consequently, we hold that Willie's due process rights were violated.

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County is reversedand the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

O'MALLEY, P.J., and CALLUM, J., concur.