Chicago Child Support Lawyer

Where it was clear that the trial court took into consideration the transportation costs the husband would incur and the cost of term life insurance the husband was ordered to acquire, and credited the husband with an amount equal to four weeks” support to compensate for the time the husband would exercise visitation, the court did not agree that the trial court’s award of child support was contrary to the facts or the law, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment ordering the husband to pay $3,300 per month child support based on an average net monthly income of approximately $9,800. In re Osborn. Where support payments per month constituted less than one-seventh of petitioner husband’s net income, there was no breach of discretion in the trial court’s determination. In re Bussey. An award of $250 monthly was not unreasonable support for a 15 month old child, considering that support awards may be changed from time to time as circumstances dictate. In re Spomer. Child support award to former wife was adequate, based upon her relatively good income, the upcoming ability of the twins to commence part-time work, former husband’s needs for his second family, and the fact that the present award takes over 21% of his income. In re Runge. Based on the financial position of the parties and the needs of their two minor children, the evidence held sufficient to award child support in the amount of $50 weekly for each child. In re Clearman. Court’s award of child support in the amount of $100 a month per child was not excessive. In re Coram. Child support award was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Sipich. An award of $300 per month was adequate considering the income of the appellee, the maintenance and property award to the appellant, and the fact that appellee would have custody of the child for three months of the year. In re Preston. An award of $1,000 per month for child support was proper where in addition to the father’s increased ability to pay, other factors, such as the financial resources and needs of the mother as custodial parent and the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved, supported the award. In re Edelstein. Amounts of maintenance and child support awarded by the circuit court in this case were based upon consideration of all relevant factors where court considered the husband as a police officer had regular salary and that he had previously earned income from overtime although this income was not certain to continue. In re Reyna. Court-ordered child support sum of $35 a week, which was approximately 1/6th of wife’s gross income before taxes, was not as manifestly unfair or unjust as to be disturbed by appellate court. Schaperkoetter v. Schaperkoetter. Child support of $200 per month for a 16 year old child was not grossly inadequate despite father’s income of $41,000. Saxon v. Saxon.

Trial court properly weighed the relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion in awarding $2,000 per month for child support, which was less than 20% of payer’s net income.  In re Singleteary.
The trial court did not err in setting child support at $1,500 per month, notwithstanding the father’s claim in his affidavit that he only had a net monthly income of $8,216; the trial court found the father’s affidavit to be to be untrustworthy, and instead found his annual income to be in excess of $205,000.  Janssen ex rel. Janssen v. Turner.
It was apparent the court took into consideration the statutory factors, and in light of these factors, it was not an abuse of discretion to award petitioner $1,700 per month in child support because it was consistent with the standard of living these children would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved, and the financial resources and needs of the parties.  In re Tietz.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering supporting parent to pay 20% of his net income although his pay only increased 8% over the years.  People ex rel. Stokely v. Goodenow.

In awarding child support, the trial court did not erroneously fail to consider assistance the husband received from his parents, the husband’s standard of living, or the husband’s earning potential where the husband has supported his family by farming during the marriage and there was no evidence that he acted in bad faith in continuing to farm, the husband’s father expected repayment for the assistance he provided, and the award was for more than 25% of the father’s net income.  In re Marriage of Bowlby.

A judgment awarding child support to be paid as a percentage of net income with fixed dollar limitations was avoidable, not void, and was not subject to collateral attack.  In re Mitchell.
Subdivision (a)(5) requires that the final order state the support level solely in dollar amounts.  In re Mitchell.
Increases in support that corresponded with the periodic increases in strike benefits that the father would receive were not speculative, and did not violate the dollar amount requirement under subdivision (a)(5).  In re Burris.
Where the circuit court ordered the husband to pay 20 percent of his net income for child support, it erred in failing to state the child support obligation in a specific dollar amount.  In re Campbell.

The evidence adduced by the plaintiff clearly showed that it was the intention of the parties at the time of the entry of the decree that defendant was to pay child support in the amount of $145 per month or 25% of his net income after taxes, whichever was greater.  Schwartz v. Schwartz.