Where, after adjusting their earned incomes for the amount of maintenance and support, the mother was being asked to support two children and herself with less than half the funds available to the father, the award of maintenance and support was inadequate. In re Fairchild.
Where divorced wife received an increase in child support from $60 a week to 34% of divorced husband’s monthly income of $1600, a new hearing was required since such increase was not supported by evidence, trial court overemphasized percentage of income formula and the financial situation of the divorced couple was not suitably determined. In re Cooper.
Evidence clearly showed needs of the child exceeding the amount awarded for support. Carney v. Carney.
Husband’s increase in child support was proper where he admitted that his income had increased and, in fact, the record reflected a substantial increase. In re Mitteer.
The trial judge’s deviation from the statutory guidelines in establishing child support constituted error which necessitated reversal. In re Jelinek.
The trial court abused its discretion by basing the award of child support on the assumption, unsupported by the evidence, that respondent earned more than the record indicated and by requiring respondent to pay a disproportionate portion of the children’s expenses. In re Smith.
Where the names of the children were mentioned in the complaint but the only relief sought was a divorce, plaintiff could not be required to pay $40 per week to the clerk for the support of his minor children. Weldon v. Weldon.
Among the factors to be considered in determining the amount of child support are the ages of the parties, their condition of health, the property and income of the husband, any separate property and income of the wife, and the station in life of the parties. Fields v. Fields.
Maintenance, child support, and attorney fees are directly related to a final property disposition since these awards are dependent upon the financial resources of the party, including material property, for which the award is made. In re White.
It was not error for the court to order support in excess of the minimum provided for the guidelines; it was agreed upon between the parties as allowed by subdivision (a)(2) of this section, and even though it was not required to do so, the trial court did enter findings which concerned the agreement and the basis for the child support amount. In re Steichen.
—-Collection
Under former Ill. Rev. Stat., ch 40, para. 19 of the Divorce Act, where a divorced father’s cessation of child support payments were made against the will of the divorced mother, the divorced father’s child support payments were not made, uncollectible jut because the child reached the age of majority. Wilson v. Wilson.
—–Denied
Given the great disparity in the parties’ income and future earning capacities, the parties’ standard of living and the wife’s reasonable needs, the trial court’s denial of the husband’s request for child support was a proper exercise of discretion. In re Vendredi.
—–Determination
Wife’s military allowances were required to be included in her income for the computation of child support. In re Baylor.
Trial court’s decision to award child support, bases upon financial information from the marriage dissolution proceedings six months earlier rather than compelling production of current information on income, asset holdings and liabilities and expenses for former spouse and children, was held proper. In re Schuster.
It is the court’s responsibility and not the parties’ to determine the adequacy of child support and the amount of child support. Blisset v. Blisset.
An award for child support must necessarily reflect a balance of the intensity of the child’s need with the ability of the parents to provide for that need. Harding v. Harding.
The court properly considered the subsequent employment and earnings of the defendant-mother, which also was proper consideration in determining a reasonable and proper support amount to be ordered. Edwards v. Edwards.
—–Evidence
An award not supported by the evidence must be set aside. In re Hilkovitch.
Defendant did not sustain his burden in showing a change of circumstances that would justify a court in changing child support provisions of a divorce decree. Chamberlin v. Chamberlin.
Children are not expected to have to live at a minimal level of comfort while the non-custodial parent is living a life of luxury; thus, where a non-custodial parent has the ability to pay support in excess of the stated needs of a child, a court may order child support in excess of that which would enable the child to enjoy the standard of living he would have had if a marriage had not been dissolved. Hall v. Clark.
Whether sums of money withdrawn from husband’s corporate interests were dividends and therefore income for federal income tax purposes or loans and not income was relevant only as it affected one of the crucial factors in determining the amount of alimony and child support, namely, defendant’s ability to pay. If the sums withdrawn were loans, plaintiff’s estimation of defendant’s income was less than if they were labeled dividends, and therefore income, which would have increased his annual income but reduced his equity and subjected him to income tax, would have materially reduced his purported income. Sandberg v. Sandberg.
The trial court in its discretion had the right to award attorney’s fees to a plaintiff to enforce her rights under the divorce decree, particularly where the rights affected the welfare of the parties’ children. Neeland v. Neeland.
—–Allowed
Court’s finding that appellant was willfully in violation of a court order was supported by the evidence and thus the statute required that appellant pay his former spouse’s reasonable attorney fees. In re Scott.
—–Denied
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying wife a hearing to determine whether husband should pay any or all of her attorney fees, as husband’s failure to make support payments during the time the boys lived with him was not without justification. In re Duerr.
—–Financial Resources
The Marriage and Dissolution Act merely requires the court to consider the financial resources of the parties in coming to a conclusion about attorney fees. In re Duerr.
Automatic Increases
Because changes in the factors relevant to a child support award cannot be anticipated with accuracy, a circuit court should ordinarily not try to anticipate such changes by making its award of child support to increase automatically with the child’s age; thus a self-adjusting aspect of the award of child support must, therefore, be reversed. McManus v. McManus.
The trial court properly dismissed that portion of a father’s petition that requested relief from his arrearage for child support payments that had accumulated since his incarceration, since children have a vested right to past-due child support and an obligated parent may have support payments modified only as to installments accruing subsequent to the due notice of the petition for modification. In re Burbridge.
Past due installments of child support are vested rights and cannot be modified by a court. Escott v. Escott.
— 
