Michelle A. Lawless, Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC, Chicago
312-741-1092 | Email Michelle Lawless
Appellate Courts Refine Standards for Home-State Jurisdiction and Support Deviations
In Preston C. v. Zakariya S., 2026 IL App (5th) 251049, Illinois had the proper jurisdiction over an interstate parentage action where the minor child divided time between Illinois and Iowa for the six months leading up to the filing of the petition to establish parentage. The father filed a petition to establish parentage in Illinois and mother filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction arguing the minor child, who was four and a half years old at the time of filing, was a resident of Iowa for six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition. The mother subsequently filed a competing petition in Iowa. The trial court conducted a lengthy evidentiary hearing with multiple witnesses concerning the child’s connections to both Iowa and Illinois and ultimately denied the mother’s motion. The mother appealed and the fifth district affirmed. The child was properly found to have no home state because he did not consecutively reside in either state for six months preceding the filing of the petition and the evidence supported such a finding where both parties testified the child split time between both households. The child had also never spent the entirety of a month in either Iowa or Illinois. Therefore, pursuant to §201(a)(2) of the UCCJEA, the trial court properly considered whether Illinois had significant connections to the matter and where the evidence was available. The trial court concluded that both the child and the father had significant connections to Illinois and significant evidence concerning the matter was located in Illinois, including witnesses, medical records, family connections and personal relationships with non-family. 750 ILCS 36/201(a)(2). The court further held that the trial court could consider evidence outside the six-month home-state period when evaluating significant connections, and that the Illinois court, as the first filed court, was not required to initiate communication with the Iowa court. Accordingly, the denial of the mother's motion to dismiss was affirmed. Justice Vaughn issued a dissenting opinion contending that it was error for the trial court to have never determined whether father was a parent or “person acting as a parent” under the UCCJEA, that the father had failed to meet the definition of “person acting as a parent”; and even notwithstanding, Iowa was the home state of the child and father’s parenting time period were simply temporary absences from Iowa since the child was living with mother in Iowa, attending preschool in Iowa, and father was provided parenting time based on the time the child was not in school. 2026 IL App (5th) 251049 at ¶103.
In re Marriage of Vanduyne, 2026 IL App (3d) 250249, demonstrates a child support payment may not be offset by personal debt owed from one party to the other. It was error for the trial court to have ordered an $800 per month child support award to be “offset” by $500 per month in attorneys’ fees owed from the wife to the husband until the attorney fee debt was paid in full. 2026 IL App (3d) 250249 at ¶1. A court may not offset child support payments to satisfy a personal debt owed by one parent to the other, including an attorney-fee judgment. Child support belongs to the child and takes precedence over financial obligations between the parents.
The parties’ premarital agreement and resulting property distribution created an extreme disparity in financial resources. The trial court declined to award an upward deviation from the guideline child support, as it was an abuse of discretion. It is well settled that a child's right to support cannot be adversely affected by a premarital agreement, and child support must be sufficient to allow the children to experience a lifestyle reasonably comparable to that which they would have enjoyed had the marriage remained intact. Because the husband received essentially the entire marital estate and significant income-producing assets while the wife was left with substantial debt and limited resources, the guideline support calculation did not adequately serve the children's best interests. The court reversed and remanded with direction to consider the husband’s overall wealth, not just his income, in evaluating an appropriate upward deviation.
For more information about family law, see FAMILY LAW: DISSOLUTIONS OF MARRIAGE COURT PROCEEDINGS (IICLE®, 2024). Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.