Department of Public Aid ex rel. Cox v. Miller,
586 N.E.2d 1251

Procedural: Petitioner, the Illinois Department of Public Aid, sought review of an order entered in the Appellate Court for the Third District (Illinois) that reversed an order denying a motion filed by respondent, a putative father, to dismiss a paternity action filed on behalf of a minor.

Facts: The Department of Public Aid filed a paternity and child support action on behalf of Monica Cox (P) against Miller (D). D filed a motion to
dismiss the suit based on a previous settlement agreement between the child's mother and him, which the court had entered as a settlement order. The mother agreed to have a paternity suit that was then filed dismissed with prejudice and D agreed to pay the mother $5,000. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed. P appeals.

Issues:
1.) Does a settlement order and dismissal entered in a paternity action bar¬ring a subsequent action brought by or on behalf of a child born out of wedlock for support violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution?
2.) Is the statutory scheme in Illinois pertaining to settlement of paternity actions unconstitutional?

RULE OF LAW: A settlement order and dismissal entered in a paternity action is not a bar to a subsequent action on behalf of the minor for support

HOLDING:
1) Yes. 2) No. Judgment reversed and remanded.
The United States Supreme Court has held that "a State may not invidi¬ously discriminate against illegitimate children by denying them sub¬stantial benefits accorded to children generally." If the state so discrimi¬nates, the statute must withstand the intermediate level of scrutiny. The state's interests of finality, preventing stale claims, and assuring that there be some support by promoting settlements do not outweigh the state interests in ensuring support for children during their minority.