IICLE Family Law Flash Points - March 2017

4.         Trial court’s denial of motion to continue and motion to reopen proofs upheld.  In a parentage action, father appealed the denial of a motion to continue and motion to reopen proofs with respect to a support modification hearing.  After a final hearing was set on mother’s petition to modify child support, father made an oral motion to continue the trial based on his unavailability. The hearing proceeded without father’s presence or testimony.  He later moved to reopen proofs prior to closing arguments so that he could testify, which was also denied. The Appellate Court affirmed and justified the trial court’s decisions due to father’s lack of due diligence displayed throughout the case: He had ignored discovery requests and court orders; he had repeatedly failed to appear at court dates; his financial disclosure statement was not credible with respect to his income; and he failed to disclose bank accounts and business interests in which he was involved.  The Appellate Court further noted that father did not make an offer of proof after the denial of the motion to reopen proofs which would have permitted it to understand what additional evidence he wanted to introduce.  The Court also affirmed the trial court’s award of $3,000 per month which was a needs-based order, but ordered that retroactivity could only be applied back to the date mother filed her motion to modify.   In re Parentage of I.I., 2016 IL App (1st) 160071.

5.         Trial court properly extended comity to Thailand judgment of parentage and establishment of child support.  Biological father of triplets conceived by gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) appealed the trial court’s ruling which applied comity to a Thailand judgment which adjudicated him to be the biological father and imposed child support obligations on him.  Father argued that the judgment was not entitled to comity because it was against Illinois public policy and because the mother obtained the judgment by fraud.  However, the Thailand judgment was not against Illinois public policy because father was not merely a sperm donor.  He had an intimate relationship with the mother for several years, participated in a traditional Thailand wedding ceremony even though it was not legally formalized, had consented in writing to the use of his sperm for the GIFT procedure, and signed the consent form as “husband.” The Court further held the mother had not secured the judgment by fraud, but rather, the father had strategically chosen to not appear at the hearing in Thailand because he had challenged Thailand’s ability to adjudicate paternity and set child support.   In re the Parentage A.H., 2017 ILApp (1st) 133703.