IICLE Family Law Flash Points - February 2017

1.         Compliance with statutory prerequisites are a different issue from whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction.  In a case brought before the Second District on a UIFSA (Uniform Interstate Family Support Act) claim, ex-husband appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss ex-wife’s post-judgment claim concerning modification of support on the grounds that the original Illinois trial court order modifying his support was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The parties had divorced in Connecticut but both had subsequently relocated to DuPage County. Husband enrolled the Connecticut judgment in Illinois and the Illinois trial court subsequently modified his support obligation before husband challenged the validity of the order.  The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss reiterating the line of cases which provide that although UIFSA  (750 ILCS 22/211) uses the terminology “jurisdiction,” it must be understood only as a procedural limit on when the trial court may modify a support order issued in another state, and not a precondition to the exercise of the court’s inherent authority since the trial court is vested with authority to hear justiciable matters through the Illinois Constitution.  See McCormick v. Robertson, 2015 IL 118230 ¶18.   In re the Marriage of Armstrong, 2016 IL App (2d) 150815.

2.         Post-judgment modification of parental decision making upheld.  In this highly litigated post-judgment modification trial, the court ultimately modified sole parental decision making to allocate it from mother to father.  The trial court heard several days of trial, including testimony from the court’s expert evaluator who issued an original report and update, and mother’s own expert evaluator.  The original report of the court’s evaluator recommended decision making be modified from mother to father, but the updated report opined that mother had shown improvement in taking responsibility for her actions and acknowledging that her actions harmed the children, and therefore a modification was not necessary. The Child Representative also recommended that decision making stay with mother.  However, the trial court decided that a modification was in the best interest of the children.  The Appellate Court affirmed, noting that the trial court was in the best position to make judgments with respect to the parties’ credibility (the trial court noted mother was not credible throughout her testimony) and that the trial court was not obligated to follow the recommendations of the expert evaluator or Child Representative.  In its opinion, the trial court wrote that the biggest factor that weighed in favor of the modification was that the father was more likely to facilitate a relationship between mother and the children than mother was with the father.  In re the Marriage of Dowd, 2016 ILApp (1st) 160098.

3.         Illinois had personal jurisdiction over mother who resided in North Carolina under the Parentage Act.  After father filed a petition to establish a parent-child relationship, mother filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that Illinois did not have personal jurisdiction over her.  The trial court disagreed and entered a preliminary injunction preventing mother from removing the minor child from Illinois.  Mother, a resident of North Carolina, filed a petition for leave to appeal which was granted on the sole issue of jurisdiction. The Appellate Court affirmed based on Section 201(a) of the Parentage Act which provide that Illinois may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident if the child resides in Illinois as a result of the acts or directives of the nonresident.  In this case, the child came to reside in Illinois after mother notified the child’s paternal grandparents that she was having surgery and needed care for the child during her recovery.  The paternal grandmother retrieved the child and the child proceeded to stay in Illinois for 5 ½ months even though mother returned to work 3 days after the surgery and made no effort to retrieve him until she was served with father’s petition. In re the Parentage of W.J.B, 2016 IL App (2d) 140361.