of their agreement. For instance, Blisset v. Blisset, 123 Ill. 2d 161 (1988), involved an agreement whereby the parties agreed to waive the father’s child-support payments in exchange for the father surrendering visitation. The supreme court found the agreement unenforceable because the parties failed to seek judicial approval of the agreement. Blisset, 123 Ill. 2d at 168. In Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App. 3d 701 (1994), the reviewing court reversed a trial court order awarding custody of the parties’ daughter to the father because the petition at issue, which was brought under the II linois Parentage Act of 1984 (750 ILCS 45/1 et seq. (West 1992)), did not seek a ruling on custody. Ligon, 264 Ill. App. 3d at 708; see also In re Custody of Ayala, 344 Ill. App. 3d 574, 584 (2003) (<HOLDING>); William J. Templeman Co. v. Liberty Mutual
holding in a paternity action that the selection and change of the childs surname from the name chosen by the mother must be based on the trial courts determination that renaming is in the childs best interests and the record must affirmatively show such a name change is required for the welfare of the minor child holding that trial court improperly awarded custody of child to the childs stepmother and grandparents where no pleading in the case was directed at such relief and the childs mother had no notice that the issue would be considered holding that the childs proximity to the initial reported disturbance the childs dress in gangattire and the childs gangwhistle and the fact that another juvenile in the area had been found carrying a concealed weapon did not provide the necessary individualized suspicion to justify the search of the child in the school parking lot recognizing policy and ruling that person who failed to file counterclaim when childs paternity was being determined in earlier litigation should not be allowed to bring later suit to establish that he was childs natural father as this would not be in the childs best interests recognizing that irrespective of the outcome of the title 9 hearing the court had the authority under njsa 304012 to retain custody of the child because the childs health and welfare would be at risk if returned to the home