IICLE Family Law Flash Points - October 2023

Trial Court Had Authority To Modify Parentage and Child Support Judgment Issued by Thailand

This procedurally complex case, which has previously been appealed twice during the proceedings, involves the parentage and child support of triplets born via IVF to unmarried parents, an American businessman father who spent significant amounts of time in Thailand and a woman in Thailand. In re Parentage of A.H., 2023 IL App (1st) 190572. After the father stopped voluntarily supporting the triplets and the relationship ended, the mother filed for parentage and support in Thailand. The father was found to be the biological father via DNA testing, although he consistently denied parentage throughout the lengthy and protracted proceedings. The Thai court ordered him to pay $500 per month per child in child support until the children were 20 years old. 2023 IL App (1st) 190572 at ¶6. The father did not pay any of the court-ordered support. The mother subsequently moved to the U.K., where she later married and filed her petition to enroll, enforce, and modify support in Illinois (where the father resided) pursuant to the jurisdictional provisions of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), 750 ILCS 22/101, et seq. The Illinois trial court ruled that it had jurisdiction and authority to enroll, enforce, and modify a child support order originally issued in Thailand. The father appealed, and the appellate court upheld. Traditional common-law principles of comity allow Illinois courts to enforce the terms of a child support order entered in the court of a foreign nation absent a showing of fraud in the procurement of the judgment or if the enforcement of the judgment violated public policy. Further, the laws of both Illinois and Thailand allow for modification of an existing child support order upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances. Therefore, once a foreign judgment is properly enrolled as a domestic support judgment, an Illinois court may entertain and decide an application for enforcement or modification under §510 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA), 750 ILCS 5/101, et seq. The court also analyzed the issue under §615(a) of UIFSA and whether Thailand qualified as a “foreign country” as defined by the statute and whether Thailand was refusing to exercise jurisdiction to modify its own support order. The court ultimately held that Thailand was not a defined foreign country under UIFSA because it has not been declared a foreign reciprocating country under federal law and has not established a reciprocal arrangement for child support with Illinois. The court therefore rejected the father’s argument that Thailand met the definition of a “foreign country,” which would require an understanding of whether it was refusing to exercise jurisdiction to modify its own order before the Illinois court could proceed on the modification issue. As a result, the Illinois trial court had authority to consider and adjudicate the mother’s petition to modify support.

Trial Court Properly Applied Pre-2017 Child Support Statute to Modification Proceeding

The father appealed the trial court’s application of the pre-2017 child support amendments (2016 statute) to A.H., supra, and argued that the post-amendment statute should have been the statutory guidelines utilized. The appellate court affirmed the trial court. Section 801 of the IMDMA states that the amendments apply to all proceedings commenced after its effective date (July 1, 2017) for the modification of a judgment or order entered prior to the effective date. The mother had filed her petition to modify child support in 2011, and the original Thai judgment was entered in 2010. Because both the entry of the Thai judgment and the filing of the petition seeking modification of that judgment took place before July 1, 2017, the 2016 statute applied. In its ruling on the requested modification, the trial court found that guideline support based on the father’s monthly income of $133,113.84 was $45,596.42 per month but deviated downward to an award of $11,000 per month per child ($33,000 per month total). 2023 IL App (1st) 190572 at ¶48.

Refusal To Allow Expert Testimony Regarding Immigration Law an Abuse of Discretion, But Harmless Error

At issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to admit expert testimony from a U.K. immigration attorney in A.H., supra. The mother had filed an emergency motion for modification of child support on the grounds that she was facing immediate deportation along with her triplets because she could not adequately provide for their means and support, among other grounds. The trial court had dealt with the immigration component of the case a number of times before trial, and it indicated it would not address the immigration issue but rather would focus solely on the child support and best interests of the children under the relevant Illinois laws. At trial, the court barred testimony from both parties’ immigration law experts. The father’s offer of proof showed that the intended testimony would have discussed U.K. immigration laws, asylum, and lawful residency in the U.K. The appellate court reasoned that if the U.K. deported the mother and triplets to Thailand, that would be relevant information for the court to know in determining whether a substantial change in circumstances existed. Although this testimony would have been relevant, it was harmless error because no deportation had occurred and the mother and triplets remained in the U.K.