___In General
Bankruptcy court determined that the Illinois state court ordered child support debt was nondischargeable; the court found that the debtor waited too long after his divorce and after he assumed the responsibility of support payments to challenge paternity of the child and get retroactive relief, pursuant to 750 ILCS 45/5(a)(1). Alter v. Ill. Dep’t of Pub. Aid
“Support” is simply a general term that can include educational expenses for a child who has turned 18 but is still in high school, and educational expenses may include room and board, just as the more generic term, support, may include shelter and food; a trial court can award support to disabled unemancipated children , minor or nonminor under 750 ILCS 5/513(a)(1), and a particular kind of support, educational expenses, to nonminor children in school under 750 ILCS 5/513(a)(2). In short, if the child has attained majority, the trial court must turn to § 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILC 5/513, when deciding whether to award support for that nonminor child. Waller v. Waller
Subsection (a) of this section allows for modification of child support orders only upon a showing of substantial change in circumstances, and the burden of proof is on the party who seeks the modification. In re Fuesting
Where no benefit accrued to the custodial parent by the noncustodial parent’s action of reducing the received child support, and it could not be concluded that the payor’s actions were the result of apparent or implied authority or that there was a principal and agent relationship between the parties, consequently, the legal concept of ratification was misapplied. In re Jackson
The section guarantees the dependent minor child of divorced parents from loss of support through disinheritance; while a divorced parent is free to disinherit a child of his divorced marriage, he may do so only subject to the limited obligation of support. In re Dulyn
The paramount concern in child support litigation is the support of the minor children. Gentile v. Gentile
In a modification proceeding, the fact that at least a part of a trial court’s reasoning consisted of the assumption that the parties knew what they were getting into was not a valid basis for affirming a divorce agreement which provided for no child support. Cross v. Cross
___Accounting
Since it was within the trial court’s discretion, due to fluctuations in husband’s income, to order respondent husband to submit a quarterly accounting of his net income to petitioner wife, the child support order was modified to require an annual accounting. Smith v. Smith
___Arrearages
Where the testimony of the plaintiff and defendant was directly in conflict with respect to the extent with which defendant had met his child support obligation to spend an additional $15 per month per child, the trial court had the responsibility of resolving this conflict and to determine the credibility of witnesses; the finding of the trial court under such conditions should be approved unless it is found to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Neeland v. Neeland
Past-due installments of child support are a vested right, and the court has no authority to modify them, either as to amount or time of payment. Gregory v. Gregory
___Burden of Proof
A trial court may, on application, terminate or make such alterations in the allowance of child support, as shall appear reasonable and proper and the burden of proof is on the person seeking modification to show such material change in circumstances as would warrant modification. In re McDavid
___Calculation
Per diem payments made to the husband, an over-the-road truck driver, constituted income for the purpose of calculating child support but could be deducted from income to the extent the husband proved he used those payments for actual travel expenses, but the husband had the burden of proving his actual expenses and of establishing a lawful basis for deducting them. Worrall v. Worrall
Because the language “$30.00 child support” was susceptible of being understood as ordering respondent to make either a lump sum payment in the amount of $30 or periodic payments in $30 increments, and the record did not justify an interpretation of $30 per week child support, the award calculated on the basis of that interpretation was improper. In re Szczotka
See Also: Divorce Lawyers San Jose
