IICLE Family Law Flash Points - June 2013

1.         Supreme Court declares the proper standard for determining visitation in parentage cases to be the best interest standard under Section 602 of the IMDMA.  The Illinois Supreme Court held that the proper standard the trial court should utilize to determine visitation under section 14(a)(1) of the Parentage Act is whether the visitation will be in the best interest of the child.  Additionally, the burden is on the party seeking the visitation to show that such visitation will be in the best interest of the child. The Court relied on the plain language of section 14(a)(1) which expressly provides for a discretionary award of visitation and directs the trial court to make a best interest finding.  Acknowledging that pursuant to Section 607 of the IMDMA there is a general presumption in divorce cases that it is in the best interest of the child to have reasonable visitation with the noncustodial parent, the Court distinguished dissolution cases from paternity cases because the legislature has presumed that it is in a child’s best interest to maintain a continued meaningful relationship with both parents after a divorce. However, preserving the parent-child relationship of a traditional intact family unit does not accurately reflect many family situations in paternity cases.  In re the Parentage of J.W., 2013 IL 114817 (2013). 

2.         Supreme Court upholds guideline support award on lump sum workers’ compensation settlement.  Father, who was the recipient of a large workers’ compensation settlement, was ordered to pay a guideline support award of 20% of the proceeds, in the amount of $47,984.  Father argued that he should not have to pay 20% of the lump sum amount because the settlement was a lifetime disability award and represented lost future wages which would extend well past the minor child’s minority.  The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the award holding that the father never specifically asked for the trial court to deviate downward from guidelines and that there was insufficient evidence at trial to warrant a downward deviation.  The Court also noted that the father had spent the majority of the money on himself.  In so ruling, the Court overturned the case of In re the Marriage of Wolfe, 298 Ill.App.3d 510 (1998) wherein the Appellate Court reversed the trial court for awarding 20% on a lump sum workers’ compensation settlement.  In re the Marriage of Mayfield, 2013 IL 114655.

3.         Trial court’s assessment of interest because of husband’s failure to make equalization payment upheld.  Husband was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $330,275 to wife incident to a dissolution of marriage.  He did not pay the amount and filed a motion to stay with the trial court while also filing a Notice of Appeal.  Wife filed a motion to dismiss his motion for stay, to pay an appeal bond, and for interest to be assessed, and the trial court ordered the interest to be paid.  The Appellate Court held that because the trial court made it clear that the award of interest was a penalty it was imposing for failure to comply with the judgment, that this issue was independent of and collateral to the issues raised in husband’s direct appeal and the that trial court retained jurisdiction to impose interest against a money judgment it awarded.  In re the Marriage of Price, 2013 IL App (4th) 120115.