Support

Support

___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

___Change in Circumstances
   The uncontroverted evidence was such that the child support order should have been reduced or modified to reflect respondent’s financial resources which at best could have been described as limited.  In re Donovan
   In order to justify a decrease in child support payments, the moving party is required to show a significant material change in the circumstances and conditions of the divorced parents since the entry of the original divorce decree.  Gentile v. Gentile
   The issue before the trial court on a motion to modify child support payments was whether the circumstances of the parties and the children had materially changed since the divorce decree, and only if that were so would a modification of the child support be proper.  Gentile v. Gentile
   In all case where petitions to modify payments under a divorce decree are involved, the primary question is whether or not changes in circumstances of the parties justify the modification.  Bulmer v. Bulmer
   In an application for modification or termination of support, the only inquiry should be whether sufficient cause has intervened since the entry of the decree to authorize the court to change the allowance.  Borowitz v. Borowitz

___Child Support
   Child support provisions in a dissolution agreement adopted by the trial court are void, in excess of the court’s jurisdiction, if the trial court could not order those provisions in the absence of the agreement.  In re Sheetz

___ ___Life Insurance
   In a divorce case, where there was no reason to believe that the husband, or his estate, would not be able to provide the mandated child support, the trial court’s decision not to require the husband to maintain a life insurance policy naming his children as the irrevocable beneficiaries was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.  Schneider v. Schneider

___Consent Decrees
   The statutory power of a court to reduce the amount of periodic payments, whether by way of alimony or child support, is not defeated by the fixing of the amount of the payments in a settlement agreement which was incorporated in the decree.  Lamp v. Lamp

___Continuing Jurisdiction
   Regardless of the presence or absence of any language limiting modification of contract terms, provisions relating to the support of minor children are always modifiable.  Burks v. Burks
   A court is concerned with the adequacy of a child support award when made; the wife can always petition for an increase in the future.  In re Smith

___Contract
   While defendant was under no legal obligation to leave his estate or any part of it to the children and his obligation to do so was created by contract and only by the contract, the contract could not be altered without his consent and the court was without authority to modify it or to enter a decree contrary to it.  Herhold v. Herhold

___Cost of Living Increase
   Evidence presented to the trial court indicated that the cot of supporting a child had substantially increased and that defendant’s income had substantially increased so as to enable him to pay this additional amount; in light of this evidence it was error for the trial court not to order the defendant to pay modified amount plaintiff sought for child support.  Grinton v. Grinton

___Death of Obligor
   Subsection (c) of this section provides that the obligation to support, unless otherwise agreed in writing or provided in the judgment, will survive the death of the parent obliged to provide child support and seeks to protect the dependent child of divorced parents from less of support through disinheritance, a loss from which a child of nondivorced parents is indirectly insulated.  DeFrancesca v. Estate of Champagne
   An order under 750 ILCS 5/513 for education and maintenance of a child, whether of minor or majority age, is intended to be included within subsection (c)of this section the same as a support order and is not terminated by the death of a parent obligated to pay for these is not terminated by the death of a parent obligated to pay for these expenses.  DeFrancesca v. Estate of Champagne
   An order of support for a non-minor child, although only to be granted under special circumstances under 750 ILCS 5/513 is the same as any other order of support and does not terminate upon the death of the parent obligated to pay the support unless otherwise agreed in writing or expressly provided in a judgment.  DeFrancesca v. Estate of Champagne
   Subsection(c)of this section authorizes modification of child support, when a parent obligated to pay support dies, “to the extent just and appropriate in the circumstances”; however, no modification of a support order is warranted where the decedent has adequately provided for the children.  Halas v. McCaskey
   No modification of a support order is warranted where te person obligated to pay support has adequately provided for the children in a testamentary device.  Halas v. Executor of Estate of Halas

___Death of Obligor
   Subsection(c)of this section seeks to protect the dependent child of divorced parents from loss of support through disinheritance, a loss from which a child of nondivorced parents is indirectly insulated; a divorced parent is still free to disinherit a child of his divorced marriage, subject only to the limited obligation of support Kujawinski v. Kujawinski
   Since an original decree made no provision for support of the minor children by the father, the former wife’s petition filed after the father’s death constituted in effect an effort to enforce a claim against plaintiff’s estate for child support unrelated to the divorce decree, and, since the death of the plaintiff rendered it impossible for the trial court to enter any personal decree against him, there could be no basis for granting relief provided by an amended decree under former Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 40, para. 19 (see now this section).  Kramp v. Kramp

___Delayed Modification
   Where at the time the petition for modification was filed, the defendant was receiving his full salary, he had incurred additional expenses because of a heart attach, but he had also recently received an inheritance, the trial court properly found that reduction of his alimony and support payments was not justified at the time of the filing of the petition, but that a modification was justified effective six months later.  Vail v. Vail

___Determination
   Support should be determined by accommodating the needs of the children with the available means of the parties.  In re Riegel

___Discretion of Court
   Where respondent husband did not object to the terms of the dissolution judgment imposing support obligations solely on him, and where he never appealed the dissolution judgment, the trial court properly ordered that the noncustodial wife was not required to pay child support, In re Kraft
   Trial court erred in striking husband’s petition to modify dissolution judgment granting child support that was filed after notice of appeal and cross appeal.  In re Petramale

___Effect of Agreement or Consent Decree
   The court has power to modify a decree or order as to child support and educational payments and there are no exception in regard to prior agreements or “consent decrees;” the trial court is not deprived of the power to modify a consent decree.  Duval v. Duvall

___Emancipation
   Section 510(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/510(a), imposes conditions for modifying an order of support and, on its face, makes no exception for extending the period during which the parent must pay support; there was no  change in circumstances within the meaning of 750 ILCS 5/510(a)(1) in a child’s eighteenth birthday coming birthday coming before his graduation from high school where the parties must have know, from the child’s birth date, that he would reach the age of majority before graduating from high school.  Waller v. Waller
   Minor child was not emancipated prior to her reaching age 18 where she earned approximately $41 per week from her part-time job, she did not seek to be financially independent and she had not abandoned her mother’s home despite the fact that she quit school against her father’s wishes.  In re Donahoe
   The modification of a divorce decree was not arbitrary or capricious where the reduction of child support payments was justified by the substantial change in circumstances consisting of the fact that two of the plaintiff’s children had reached majority and ceased to be under plaintiff’s care and custody.  Thomas v. Thomas
   Where by stipulation at the time of divorce, a former husband agreed to pay child support only during the minority of his children, appellant’s legal obligation to support his daughter ceased on her eighteenth birthday.  Stecher v. Stecher

___Equitable Estoppel
   The doctrine of equitable estoppel is an exception to the otherwise inflexible rule that alimony and child support payments become vested when and as they accrue.  Jozwick v. Jozwick

___Estate Liability
   This section cannot be construed as providing that the support obligation is to be considered a priority claim against an estate.  Meyers v. Meyers
   A parent’s estate is liable for that parent’s support obligation to the extent just and appropriate in the circumstances, and the court may determine at the time of the dissolution of the marriage the amount of support for which a deceased parent’s estate will be held liable.  In re Dulyn

___Factors Considered
   When setting an amount for modification of child support, the court may consider the same factors used when formulating an original support order; these factors include the standard of living the child would have enjoyed if the marriage had not been dissolved, and the financial resources of the noncustodial parent.  In re Boyden
   The factors to be considered for modification or termination as to each party are: (1) their ages, social conditions, health, and whether there are any children dependent upon them for support, (2) the duration of the marriage, since the longer the marriage the greater a woman’s claim for support becomes, and (3) their agreement as to the property settlement adopted in the divorce decree.  Gorman v. Gorman

___Failure to Pay
   Noncompliance with a court order to make support payments is prima facie evidence of contempt.  In re Dunseth
   Where defendant’s inability to pay child support was because of economic circumstances, the court was correct to find that an employment layoff and an attempt to become self-employed were not attempts to evade financial responsibility.  In re Hardy
   Father, who did not make child support payments because of reliance on a late 1967 order which relieved him of the obligation to make such payments, and who did not willfully and contumaciously refuse to obey the child support provision of the divorce decree warranted the refusal by the trial court to issue a rule to show cause against father.  Gentile v. Gentile

___Failure to Reinstate Obligation
   The trial court, after entering an order suspending a husband’s child support payments during a period when the husband was disabled, could not subsequently hold the husband responsible for payments accruing after the disability had ended, when the court failed to reinstate the obligation according to the terms of its own order.  Rodgers v. Rodgers

___Held Sufficient
   Trial court’s finding that children were adequately provided for was supported by the evidence when $604,000, in addition to a portion of the annual alimony payments, had become available to provide for the two children’s support upon decedent’s death.  Halas v. McCaskey
   Child support of $200 per month for a 16 year old was not grossly inadequate despite father’s income of $41,000.  Saxon v. Saxon

___Incarceration of Obligor
   Incarceration is comparable to an involuntary loss of employment, however, incarceration, as a foreseeable result of criminal activity, does not ipso facto relieve one of the obligation to pay child support.  People ex rel. Meyer v. Nein

___Increase Denied
   Trial court properly denied petitioner’s request for increased child support.  Halas v. Executor of Estate of Halas
   Modification of support is required where there is a substantial imbalance between the supporting parent’s capabilities and the child’s needs.  In re Boyden
   Where there was sufficient evidence to justify the finding that, since the entry of the original divorce decree, the needs of the defendant’s children had increased materially, and the evidence also sustained a finding that defendant was able to pay an increased amount of child support, trial court findings that defendant should pay increased child support was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.  Neeland v. Neeland

___Increase in Child Support
   Trial court abused its discretion in failing to comply with 750 ILCS 5/510(a) and 750 ILCS 5/513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/510(a) and 750 ILCS 5/513, before extending the termination date of a support order to provide child support for an 18 year-old until his graduation from high school.  Waller v. Waller
   The trail court did not abuse its discretion in increasing the amount of child support where the children had grown older and, thus, the court could presume their needs increased, ex-wife testified that as the children were older, they became more involved in school activities, thereby increasing their expenses, husband’s financial affidavits indicated he was making a higher salary than he did at the time of dissolution and this way not contradicted, and  ex-wife was not making much more money and testified she needed the child support in order to make ends meet.  In re Lambdin
   Petitioner clearly established both increased expenses for her daughters and respondent’s increased ability to support them; hence, the appellate court found an abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s dismissal of petitioner’s petition for modification and found that the record supported an increase in child support in an amount calculated pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/505(a).  In re Heil

___Involuntary Unemployment
   Child support payments may properly be abated or reduced where an inability to pay results from involuntary loss of employment, but such relief should be temporary in nature in the sense that the petitioning party should be required within a reasonable time to establish that continued unemployment was in good faith; i.e., was the result of mental or physical disability or unsuccessful attempts to obtain other employment.  Glass v. Peitchel

___Joint Decision
   Where divorce decree required a joint decision of the parents, it did not contemplate that one parent could select a school, enroll the child, pay the tuition, and then present the other parent with a fait accompli and request to impose the financial burden on the one who was not consulted.  Van Nortwick v. Van Nortwick

___Jurisdiction
   The court’s jurisdiction to alter custody and support of the children is exclusive and continuing until the child or children attain their majority, and the decree or order fixing the custody of the child or children is final only as to the conditions then existing.  Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer

___Laches
   The doctrine of laches would not be applied where there was no injury or prejudice to the adverse party and where there was no change in the situation of the parties due to the delay to the detriment of the adverse party, and the defendant would not be prejudiced or injured by merely requiring him to pay child support that he had owed for a number of years.  Jozwick v. Jozwick

___Minimum Support Guidelines
   The guidelines for minimum support in 750 ILCS 5/505 are to be used when considering the modification of a support judgment.  In re Boyden

___Modification

___ ___In General
   Parties cannot agree to make child support nonmodifiable; child support is modifiable even when combined with nonmodifiable alimony or maintenance.  Burks v. Burks
   Unlike other final orders, a decree of child support is always modifiable.  In re Petramale
   When a supporting spouse’s financial condition improves notably, where there is a discussion suggesting that increases should be made, child support payments may be required to be increased, even though there is no showing that the child’s or children’s needs have increased specifically where the original support payment did not adequately meet the children’s needs.  Legan v. Legan
   The proper issue before the trial court on a motion to modify child support payments was whether the circumstances of the parties and the children had materially changed since the divorce decree and only if these circumstances have changed since the time of the original decree would a modification of the child support be proper.  Gentile v. Gentile
   The modification of child support payments is a judicial function which is to be administered solely by the court and at its discretion.  Jozwick v. Jozwick
   For a case discussing modification of payments for children’s education, see Booth v. Booth

___ ___Allowed
   Where respondent expressly agreed to remain obligated to pay child support if the children were enrolled as full-time students in high school or college, trial court did not err in entering order increasing child support for adult children 19 and 20 years of age who were attending college, due to inflation and the increased expenses of the children in general, including utilities and food.  Falat v. Falat
   Where ex-spouse changed occupations to improve his prospects for the future he was allowed a reduction in child support until the new occupation became lucrative.  In re Lavelle
   Evidence presented regarding a child’s increased food, clothing, baby-sitting, and preschool expenses provided sufficient grounds for the trial court’s modification of father’s child support obligation.  In re Stone
   Where there was no evidence to support the conclusion that respondent’s participation in a strike was motivated by a desire to jeopardize his children’s interests or to evade financial responsibility for their support, respondent participated in the strike in “good faith” and was therefore entitled to a reduction in child support reflective of his present ability to pay.  Cohn v. Cohn
   The court’s order increasing support by $85 per month was not an abuse of discretion, where the record was devoid of any evidence of the lifestyle of the child and testimony concerning expenses admittedly involved only guesses.  Harner v. Harner
  Where the financial situation of the mother required her to contribute to the children’s support, it was not equitable to require her to bear 82% of the amount of the increase in the cost of raising the children, therefore, since the father’s income and net worthy had also increased substantially the child support payment for the father was increased.  In re Roth
   The provision of the decree awarding possession of the marital home to the defendant was characterized as a provision for child support, and, therefore, subject to modification, based upon the fact that the children were now residing with the plaintiff, and that their use of the marital home of the parties as a residence was no longer required.  Lamp v. Lamp
   The record did not clearly support the amount of the increase which was awarded.  In re Schmerold
   A petition for an increase in child support is allowed if there has been a substantial change in circumstances and the petitioner has provided the opposing party with notice.  Bayuk v. Bayuk
   Where ex-husband’s income was considerably greater than wife’s and fluctuated a great deal, the modification of child support payments to be self-modifying as a percentage of his income was neither an abuse of the trial court’s discretion nor against the manifest weight of the evidence.  Smith v. Smith
   In a modification action, the increased needs of the children required that the father be ordered to increase his child support payments, consistent with his increased earnings; it was clearly apparent that the father could readily afford more than the amount which was ordered by the trial court and that in light of his salary supporting his own children.  Spencer v. Spencer
   Although some of the costs to which petitioner testified were excessive, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding an increase in child support.  Scott v. Scott
   A decree which modified support upon the plaintiff/wife’s remarriage was upheld where there was a substantial basis in this record for the findings of the chancellor, where plaintiff, the adult daughter of the parties, and several other witnesses, corroborated the basis for the findings, and where an attorney who was friendly with both parties testified that defendant admitted the basis for the chancellor’s findings.  Loeb v. Gendel

___ ___Burden of Proof
   The trial court is only justified in increasing child support upon a showing that the needs of the children and the earnings of the supporting parent have increased since the judgment granting child support was entered.  Falat v. Falat
   In order to obtain a modification of child support, the moving party must allege and sustain facts demonstrating a substantial change in circumstances.  In re McBride
   Child support directed to be paid by a party is subject to modification upon showing of a substantial change in circumstances.  In re Redmer
   An award of child support may be modified only upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances; the evidence must establish that both the needs of the child and the supporting parent’s ability to pay have increased.  Harner v. Harner
   A party seeking modification of a provision for child support must show that there has been a substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the previous judgment.  In re Roth
   Once a petition has been filed, upon a showing of material change of circumstances, support payments can be modified as of the date the petition was filed.  In re Roth
   Under this Act, child support may be modified only upon the showing of a substantial change of circumstances; to establish such change as would warrant an increase in support, petitioner must show that the children’s needs and the noncustodial spouse’s ability to pay have increased.  In re Cooper
   The court possesses jurisdiction to modify a decree as to child support payments but, it may only do so when conditions and circumstances of the parties have materially changed since the entry of the divorce decree.  Waggoner v. Waggoner
   In order to justify a decrease in child support payments the moving party is required to show a significant material change in circumstances and conditions of the divorced parents since the entry of the original divorce decree.  Gentile v. Gentile
   To warrant an increase in child support payments the petitioner has the burden of proving a change in circumstances which could warrant the increase, and also that the income of the defendant has increased.  Heady v. Simmons

___ ___Court’s Power
   The circuit court does have the authority to modify a child support provision in a dissolution of marriage judgment that was entered in accordance with a settlement agreement.  Falat v. Falat
   The trial court has the power to modify child support provisions of a divorce judgment if a modification has been shown to be necessitated by changes in the conditions and circumstances of the parties occurring subsequent to entry of the divorce judgment.  In re Kessler
   There is no question that a trial court has the authority to order a modification in a divorce decree regarding child support payments.  Heady v. Simmons

___ ___Factors Considered
   Courts must consider the statutory guidelines in 750 ILCS 5/505 as part of a modification analysis.  This approach comports with the principle that courts consider the same factors they considered in formulating the original support order.  In re Stockton
   When setting an amount for modification of child support, the court may consider the same factors used when formulating an original support order, including the standard of living the child would have enjoyed if the marriage had not been dissolved and the financial resources of the noncustodial parent.  In re Boyden
   When determining whether there is sufficient cause to modify an award of child support, courts consider both the circumstances of the parents and the circumstances of the child.  In re Wettstein
   Upon application for a modification of support, the court’s paramount consideration is whether a substantial and material change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the decree which in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the decree which would authorize the court to change the allowance.  In re Morrisroe
   In determining whether to modify child support, the increase in the children’s needs must be balanced against the relative ability of the parents to provide for them, and where a change has occurred which creates a substantial imbalance between the child’s needs and the parent’s support capabilities, modification is required.  Fedun v. Kuczek
   If the threshold question of substantial change is met when determining whether to modify child support, the court, in determining the amount of increase in child support, considers the same factors it considered in formulating the original amount.  Fedun v. Kuczek
   Trial court is to consider the same factors in considering modifying the amount of child support as it considers in formulating an original support order.  In re Erickson
   Modification of support obligation is appropriate where the supporting spouse terminates his employment to further his education, has suffered substantial economic setbacks resulting from investments, or has encountered a reduction in income because of a change in employement or occupation.  In re Kowski
   Under this Act, the paramount consideration of the court in determining whether to modify a child support order is to determine whether a substantial and material change has intervened since the original support allowance was made; while the needs of the child and the financial status of the noncustodial parent are important factors in making the decision, the court must also consider the financial resources of the child, the financial status and needs of the custodial parent, the standard of living the child was accustomed to prior to dissolution, and the physical and emotional needs and education needs of the child.  In re Daniels
   Factors to be considered by the trial court in exercising its discretion regarding modification of child support provisions include financial resources of children, financial status of custodial parent, financial resources of noncustodial parent, standard of living the children would have enjoyed in absence of divorce, and physical, emotional and educational needs of the children.  In re Emerson.
   The factors to be considered in making an award of child support are applicable to modification proceedings.  In re Butler
   The needs of the children should be considered with the available means of both parents to contribute to a satisfy those needs; the accommodation or balance between the needs of the children and means of providing support is not dependent alone upon the existence or nonexistence of an increase in the income of the supporting parties.  Luthy v. Luthy
   The trial court erred in holding that modification of child support is allowable only upon a showing that the noncustodial parent’s ability to pay has increased; on remandment, the court was ordered to consider all relevant factors in making its determination, including the income and other assets of both the parents, and the income and assets of the children.  Luthy v. Luthy
   Whenever a request for modification of child support is sought, it is the duty of the court in which the action has been brought to ascertain all the pertinent facts and circumstances and to determine whether the award is fair and equitable or should be modified.  Bayuk v. Baynuk
   Just as in initially determining the amount of support, the facts to be considered by the trial court in modifying the support provisions of the divorce decree includes the ages of the parties, their condition of health, the property and income of the mother, the property and income of the father, and the station in life of the parties.  Winter v. Winter

___ ___Not Allowed
   Although various household expenses were expenses that could have been party attributable to the children, wife had not shown any specific increased needs of the children for which husband was not already voluntarily paying; to the extent that wife demonstrated that some of the children’s needs for which husband was already providing increased, the trial court modified the judgment and ordered husband to pay these expenses; although it was clear that the husband’s income and net worth had increased over the years, his responsibilities had also increased; further, wife also had an obligation to financially contribute to the support of the family; there was nothing in the record to suggest that she was unable to do so; the trial court increased the husband’s payments by the amount it felt the children’s needs had increased; on this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing wife’s request for additional sums.  In re Fazioli
   Arguments advanced by wife that the cost of living had increased and that the children had grown older were previously contemplated by the parties and subsequently provided for the settlement agreement therefore, record supported the conclusion that the findings of the trial court increasing child support per wife’s modification request were against the manifest weight of the evidence.  In re Stadheim
   The duty of the respondent to pay support was not enlarged, nor was the petitioner’s need for support diminished in any way during or after post-dissolution, cohabitational relationship, therefore respondent’s petition for modification was dismissed.  In re Antonich
   Father’s petition for modification of child support was properly denied where the original judgment of divorce indicated that both parties intended that their son would receive support if he attended college, both parties acknowledged that it was contemplated that their son would be attending college in the near future and any decrease in the financial needs of the mother or increase in the father’s financial need generated by a prior change in custody was minimal.  In re Milburn
   Where son’s college attendance would require mother to spend substantial sums of money, and since there was evidence that petitioner’s child care costs for her daughter, who resided with mother, had increased at the same time mother’s income had increased, a finding that the pro rata decrease in child support requested by the father would result in a decrease in the daughter’s standard of living was not an abuse of discretion and such modification was not allowed.  In re Milburn
   Reducing child support payments to wife as a method of repayment for transportation expenses owed to husband was an abuse of discretion under the circumstances.  Faris v. Faris   
   The circuit court correctly denied an increase in support where the record was devoid of evidence of the other’s expenses for the child at the time of the original decree, and where she did not even attempt to itemize the individual factors underlying her determination of the amount she spent per month.  Harner v. Harner
   The summer camp provision unambiguously required defendant to pay the entire amount of the expenses, therefore, that portion of the trial court order which required defendant to pay only 60% of future summer camp tuition was reversed.  In re Roth
   Where divorced wife received an increase in child support from $60.00 a week to 34% of divorced husband’s monthly income of $1,600, a new hearing was required since such an increase was not supported by the evidence as the trial court over emphasized percentage of income formula and the financial situation of the divorced spouses was not suitably determined.  In re Cooper
   Considering the husband’s monthly income, with both the required and optional deductions plus the tax benefits he received, the monthly family support awarded was neither against the manifest weight of the evidence nor an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, where the husband testified that he earned a base salary of $60,000 per year; in 1976 he also received a bonus of $600 in addition to his base salary; the wife was a registered nurse prior to their marriage but terminated such employment shortly after the marriage; the parties had been married for approximately 20 years, during which time the husband advanced himself in business while the wife devoted herself to maintaining a home and raising the couple’s children and her maximum expected salary was $11,000 per year.  Schuppe v. Schuppe
   An award of $550 per month in child support payments was not unjustified where it was adduced that since entry of the decree plaintiff had remarried and shared a home with her spouse and child; plaintiff retained a live-in housekeeper at a salary of $80 per week; the plaintiff’s itemized monthly expenses for the child were as follows: food: $111; medical: $17.77; clothes: $85; allowance: $4.25; entertainment: $6.40; gifts for friends: $6; vacations: $58; tutoring: $46; haircuts: $5; summer camp expenses were $425 and tennis and art lessons totaled $335 per year; plaintiff was a licensed real estate salesperson and prior to the date of the hearing had earned $11,800 from that endeavor, and plaintiff also realized approximately $30,000 from the sale of the marital home.  Winter v. Winter
   Because the trial court erred in modifying child support and because defendant failed to prove a substantial change of circumstances, it also erred when it arbitrarily reduced the arrearage from $890 to $400.  Dixon v. Dixon
   A father’s alleged inability to pay any child support, with no showing of good faith, resulted in not only manifest injustice to plaintiff, but perhaps also to the children, in view of the fact that there was no evidence in the record concerning plaintiff’s ability to support him; therefore, the portion of an order which abated the shield support payments was reversed and remanded with directions.  Glass v. Peitchel

___ ___Retroactivity
   A trial court has no authority to retroactively modify a child support order.  In re Henry

___Need

­­___ ___In General
   The trial court may presume that the expenses associated with the raising of children are increased each year.  Falat v. Falat
   Child support is to be determined by accommodating the needs of the children with the available means of the parties.  It is incumbent upon the trial court to consider both the needs of the children and the ability of the former spouse to pay.  Gentile v. Gentile

___ ___Ability to Pay
   Child support obligations may be increased pursuant to this section based upon the supporting parent’s increased ability to pay, regardless of whether the child’s needs have also increased.  Wilson v. Wilson
   The financial status of a divorced parent’s current spouse should not be considered in determining the ability of that spouse to fulfill his or her duty to support.  In re Kessler
   In assessing the children’s increased needs, it is proper to consider that they have grown older and that the cost of living has risen, but this must be balanced against the relative ability of the parents to provide for the children.  In re Cooper
   Child support payments must necessarily reflect a balance of the intensity of the child’s needs with the ability of the parents to provide for that need.  Gentile v. Gentile
   Trial court abused its discretion in strictly adhering to the formula set out in the property settlement regarding child support payments based upon ex-husband’s income where his income increased significantly, so as to double the amount of child support, and that a hearing should be held to determine the child’s actual needs compared with the ex-husband’s ability to pay an increased amount and ex-wife’s increased ability to support the child.  Dull v. Dull

___ ___Evidence
   Once the respondent’s increased ability to pay has been demonstrated, the petitioner may establish increased needs of the children based on the fact that the children have grown older and the cost of living has risen.  Falat v. Falat
   Where the supporting parent’s ability to pay is shown, the fact that the child has grown older and the fact that the cost of living has risen are proper bases for establishing increased need.  In re Roth

___ ___In Excess
   Where the noncustodial parent has ability to pay support in excess of the stated needs of the child, the court may order child support in excess of the needs to enable the child enjoy the standard of living he would have and if the marriage had not been dissolved.  In re Bean

___ ___Increase
   The trial court is justified in increasing child support if the needs of the children and the earnings of the supporting parent have increased since the judgment granting child support was entered.  In re Heil
   Where a former spouse’s ability to pay child support is shown, the fact that the children have grown older and the cost of living has risen are proper bases for establishing increased need.  In re Fazioli
   The increase in the children’s needs must be balanced against the change has occurred which creates a substantial imbalance between the child’s needs and the parent’s support capabilities, modification is required.  In re Fazioli
   The increased needs of the child may be established by the child’s growing older and the increase in the cost of living established by the expert testimony.  Giamanco v. Giamanco
   New or changed conditions are necessary to warrant a change in support payments, and increased needs of children may be presumed from the fact that children have grown older and the cost of living has risen.  In re Kessler
   An increase in support payments is warranted when the evidence establishes that the needs of the children have increased, and the means of the father have also increased so as to enable him to contribute additional sums to his children’s support.  Nordstrom v. Nordstrom

___Notice

___ ___In General
   Modification of child support payments can be had only as to those installments accruing subsequent to due notice by the moving party of the motion for modification.  People ex rel. Stokely v. Goodenow
   Support payments may be modified only as to installments accruing after the party moving for modification has given due notice.  In re Frazier

___ ___Pleadings
   Where petitioner sought modification of divorce decree to compel ex-spouse to support the parties’ mentally disabled child after she attained majority; the petition adequately asserted a “change in circumstances” based on the child’s continuing handicap after attaining majority; however, it may not have been necessary to please a “change in circumstances” under this section since there may be a substantive obligation to support to a mentally disabled child in 750 ILCS 5/513, unrelated to the terms of any prior divorce decree.  In re Winters

___ ___Retroactivity
   Child support payments may be modified only as to installments accruing after the party moving for modification has given due notice.  In re Macino
   A modification for child support 20 years after the divorce could not be applied retroactively.  Nerini v. Nerini
   The question of whether modification of child support should be retroactive is within the discretion of the trial court.  In re Ingrassia
   The question whether modification of child support should be retroactive is within the discretion of the trial court.  Where there was an interim of over one year between the filing of the petition and the entry of the order but at least five months of that delay was attributable to respondent’s willful failure to comply with petitioner’s discovery requests, it was inequitable to allow respondent to benefit due to his dilatory behavior; the support order was made effective retroactive five additional months.  In re Leva
   A court may, within its discretion, modify a support order retroactively to the date that the petition for modification was filed and, thus, child support payments in arrears which accrue thereafter do not become vested.  In re McDavid

___ ___Review
   A petition to modify child support must be decided on the facts of each case, and the decision rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.  People ex rel. Meyer v. Nein
   A determination of the proper amount of child support, and modification thereof, lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be set aside absent an abuse of that discretion, which occurs only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court.  In re Partney
   The decision of the trial court to modify or not to modify child support payments will only be disturbed if such decision is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence.  In re Lavelle
   The modification of child support payments is a judicial function; the court’s decision to modify the payment of child support is discretionary in nature and only takes effect prospectively.  In re Erickson
   Modification of child support payment rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and it will not be set aside unless the finding is clearly contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.  Legan v. Legan
   Considerable discretion is placed in the trial court and an order of modification of child support will not be disturbed on review, absent an abuse of discretion.  Winter v. Winter
   The court erred in its order modifying the decree of divorce which in effect provided that the defendant father need pay no more for the support of the minor children except when he requested that they be brought to his home and then he was required to pay plaintiff $30 on each and every occasion, where he was financially able to support the children.  Kemp v. Kemp

___ ___Settlement Agreement
   A settlement agreement provision that husband would not advance as a reason for modification of the child support payments any future employment of wife did not divest the court of its power to modify the divorce decree into which the agreement was incorporated.  Wohl v. Whol

Back to 750 ILCS 5/510 Home Page