No. 2--02--0795

JUSTICE GROMETER delivered the opinion of the court:

The Illinois Department of Public Aid (IDPA) filed a petitionagainst defendant Ronald J. Hoyle in the circuit court of OgleCounty to obtain a judicial determination that defendant was thenatural father of minor Kailynd L. McGregor and to compel defendantto pay child support and obtain health insurance for Kailynd. TheState, on behalf of the IDPA, filed a motion for summary judgmenton the issue of paternity. The trial court granted the State'smotion for summary judgment. The trial court also ordereddefendant to pay child support and support arrearages, requireddefendant to name Kailynd as a beneficiary on his health insurance,and awarded defendant the income tax exemption for Kailynd. Onappeal, defendant challenges the trial court's determination ofpaternity. We affirm.

FACTS

Kailynd was born to Sharon L. Shockley on May 27, 1989, inAlameda, California. Kailynd's birth certificate, which Shockleysigned, lists John P. Van Olden as the minor's father. Shockleyand Van Olden were never married. Eventually, Shockley and Kailyndmoved to Montana.

On October 29, 1999, the IDPA filed a petition on behalf ofthe State of Montana Department of Public Health and HumanServices, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) seeking to (1)establish that defendant is Kailynd's father and (2) obtain childsupport and medical coverage from defendant for Kailynd. See 750ILCS 22/100 et seq. (West 2000) (the Uniform Interstate FamilySupport Act). Attached to the petition was an affidavit in supportof establishing paternity. In the affidavit, Shockley alleged thatshe became pregnant on October 1, 1988, and that Kailynd was bornsix weeks prematurely. Shockley further alleged that her physiciandid not establish that Kailynd was premature until after Shockleyfilled out the birth certificate. Given the confusion aboutKailynd's conception date, Shockley listed Van Olden as Kailynd'sfather on the birth certificate. Shockley stated that Van Oldenneither signed an acknowledgment of paternity nor held himself outto be Kailynd's father. Shockley further alleged that Kailynd wasconceived while Shockley was involved in a relationship withdefendant, a man to whom she was never married.

Defendant filed an answer denying the substantive allegationsof the petition. Defendant also filed a motion for declaratoryjudgment and sanctions. In support of his motion for declaratoryjudgment, defendant alleged that (1) under the law of California,the state of Kailynd's birth, Van Olden had been established asKailynd's father; (2) Shockley is estopped to assert that anyoneother than Van Olden is Kailynd's father; and (3) section 27 of theIllinois Parentage Act of 1984 (Parentage Act) (750 ILCS 45/27(West 2000)) requires the court to grant full faith and credit toCalifornia's determination of paternity. The trial court denieddefendant's motion and entered an order requiring Shockley,Kailynd, and defendant to undergo deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)tests. The test results indicated that the probability ofdefendant's paternity of Kailynd was 99.96%.

The State, on behalf of the IDPA, then moved for summaryjudgment. Defendant opposed the State's motion on the same groundsasserted in his motion for declaratory judgment. The trial courtgranted the State's motion based on the results of the DNA tests. The court later ordered defendant to pay child support and supportarrearages, required defendant to name Kailynd as a beneficiary onhis health insurance policy, and awarded defendant the income taxexemption for Kailynd effective beginning the 2002 tax year. Defendant appealed.

ANALYSIS

The principal issue in this case is whether, under Californialaw, Kailynd's parentage was established by the issuance of theminor's birth certificate, which named Van Olden as Kailynd'sfather. Defendant asserts that under section 102425 of theCalifornia Health and Safety Code (Cal. Health & Safety Code