IICLE Family Law Flash Points - October 2016

3.         Inadequate bystanders report renders record on appeal inadequate for Appellate Court to rule.  Mother was found in indirect civil contempt for her failure to bring minor child to Illinois for visitation with father over the Thanksgiving holiday.  The proceeding was not transcribed, but the court issued an order holding mother in contempt and sentenced her to jail with a purge amount of $10,000.  The court also denied mother’s motion to stay the proceedings on the same day.  Several months later, the court and counsel appeared and put on the record a summary of what happened at that hearing because the court did not want to certify the bystander’s report that was submitted.  Mother then submitted this record as her bystander’s report in the Appellate Court.  However, the report was improper because Supreme Court Rule 323(c) contemplates a collaborative process for the generation of a bystander’s report, including that the appellant serve the appellee with a copy of the proposed report.  The record showed that father was not in court when the retroactive summary record of the hearing took place and there was no indication that the mother provided father with her proposed bystander’s report.  Therefore, the trial court erred when it certified the bystander’s report.  Because the report was invalid, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.  In re the Parentage of G.E., 2016 IL App (2d) 150643.

4.         UIFSA does not create a duty of support and cannot be utilized to establish an initial child support order if Illinois statutory authority does not provide for such an order.  The Department of Healthcare and Family Services (Department) filed a “uniform support petition” on behalf of a mother, a resident of Mexico, against the father of their two children, a resident of Illinois.  The record showed that the mother and father were married in Mexico in 1996.  Section 303 of UIFSA requires a trial court to rely upon the law of the forum state to determine whether the respondent owes a duty of support.  Because no dissolution of marriage proceeding was on file, the IMDMA did not grant authority for a support order to be entered.  The Parentage Act did not apply because no determine of parentage was being sought and any determination would involve a custody judgment which is prohibited by UIFSA.  Finally, the Public Aid Code also did not apply because the Department was not enforcing a child support obligation. Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed the Department’s petition.   Department of Healthcare and Family Services v. Arevalo, 2016 IL App (2d) 150504.