IICLE Family Law Flash Points - November 2023

Guardian ad Litem Statute Amended Effective January 1, 2024

Section 506 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/101, et seq., is amended effective January 1, 2024, with respect to the specific duties of a guardian ad litem (GAL) as follows: (1) the GAL shall submit to the court and the parties a written report, recommendations, or a proposed parenting plan not less than 30 days before a final hearing or trial, unless the court directs otherwise; (2) the report shall be admitted into evidence without the need for foundation; and (3) the GAL shall be available for a deposition before a final hearing notwithstanding any other discovery cutoff. Further, at the discretion of the court, the GAL (1) may be present for all proceedings, including any in camera examination of the child; (2) may issue subpoenas as part of the investigation; and (3) may file pleadings relating to procedural matters. Section 506 was not amended with respect to the duties and responsibilities of child representatives or attorneys for the children. A complete copy of the statute may be found here.

Connecticut Appellate Court Interprets Marital Settlement Agreement When Husband Fails To Maintain Required Life Insurance Policy Beneficiaries

At the time the parties in John Hancock Life Insurance Co. v. Curtin, 219 Conn.App. 613, 295 A.3d 1055 (2023), divorced, the husband obtained a life insurance policy with a death benefit of $500,000 as was required by the separation agreement (Connecticut’s version of an MSA), but he did not designate the beneficiaries consistent with what the separation agreement required. He designated his estate as the primary beneficiary and no secondary beneficiary, rather than naming the specific primary beneficiary and secondary beneficiary the separation agreement listed. The husband died testate, and the insurance company filed an interpleader action alleging it was unable to determine who was entitled to what amount due to the inconsistency between the beneficiary designation and the separation agreement. The Connecticut Appellate Court held that the separation agreement’s express designation of a remedy for breach of the husband’s obligation was that the ex-wife would have a claim and charge against his estate in the amount of $500,000. Therefore, the daughter did not have a right to the life insurance proceeds directly under the interpleader cause of action but would have to seek the $500,000 against her father’s estate directly.