Michelle A. Lawless,Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC, Chicago
312-741-1092 | Email Michelle Lawless
Held Up or Upheld: Illinois Appellate Courts Refine Trial Courts’ Child Support and Parenting Time Orders
Appointment of Supreme Court Rule 215 Psychological Evaluation and Indefinite Suspension of Parenting Time Upheld
In a contentious dissolution of marriage case involving contested parenting issues regarding three minor children, the trial court ordered the self-represented respondent to undergo a S.Ct. Rule 215 psychological examination, but the respondent refused. Throughout the proceedings in In re Marriage of Neal, 2025 IL App (3d) 250101-U, the respondent alleged a widespread conspiracy between the court, guardian ad litem, evaluators, and school officials to conceal abuse by the petitioner. The respondent’s accusations included inflammatory emails and conduct directed at school staff, maintaining a public website enumerating the respondent’s accusations, and attaching inappropriate photos of a child to pleadings, among other things. Repeated investigations by state and regulatory agencies, including the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, found the respondent’s abuse claims to be unfounded. After the respondent continued to refuse to cooperate with court-ordered psychological evaluations, the trial court found the respondent’s conduct seriously endangered the children and suspended parenting time pending completion of the Rule 215 examination. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the respondent’s mental condition was clearly “in controversy,” that the Rule 215 order complied with all procedural requirements, and that indefinitely suspending parenting time until completion of the examination was a proper protective measure, not a punitive sanction.
Trial court reversed for granting motion to dismiss petition to increase child support
In In re Marriage of Ito, 2025 IL App (3d) 240641-U, the trial court dismissed the mother’s petition to increase child support. The language in the parties’ marital settlement agreement imputed the mother’s income at $60,000 per year even though she was actually unemployed and receiving disability benefits. Later, after the trial court entered a judgment for dissolution, the mother alleged that the disability benefits were terminated and she was living on $2,800 per month in unemployment income. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the petition to increase support, holding that the trial court improperly addressed the merits of the mother’s underlying case instead of evaluating the sufficiency of the petition filed. The mother’s allegations of a worsened financial condition since the entry of judgment stated a potential basis for modification under §510 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/101, et seq.
Motion to allocate children’s expenses characterized as motion to modify support
In a post-judgment matter in In re Marriage of Kinsella, 2025 IL App (3d) 240144-U, the trial court denied the father’s motion to modify support and granted the mother’s motion to set child-related expenses. The trial court’s judgment, which was entered after a contested trial, ordered the father to pay child support, but it did not allocate between the parties certain future expenses for the children, including health insurance premiums and medical and school expenses. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the father’s motion to modify child support since the evidence showed the father’s income had not necessarily decreased, his accountant’s testimony did not show otherwise, and his testimony as to his income was not credible. The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion in granting the mother’s motion to set child-related expenses because the trial court did not treat it as a motion to modify child support pursuant to §510 of the IMDMA and the mother did not prove that there was a substantial change of circumstances. However, while the appellate court vacated the portion of the trial court’s order requiring the father to pay 65 percent of the children’s school expenses, it upheld the allocation to the father of 65 percent of their medical expenses. 2025 IL App (3d) 240144-U at ¶¶39 – 40.
Trial court’s denial of motion to restrict parenting time upheld
Upon the mother’s appeal of the trial court’s judgment for dissolution of marriage in In re Marriage of Werhun, 2025 IL App (3d) 250201-U, the appellate court upheld the denial of the mother’s request to restrict the father’s parenting time, finding no evidence that his past alcohol use or mental health issues “seriously endangered” the child. At a hearing before the trial court, both the GALand the evaluator appointed under §604.10 of the IMDMA testified that the father posed no risk to the child. The appellate court also upheld the trial court’s finding that the father was not cohabitating with his girlfriend. However, the appellate court did find the trial court abused its discretion by failing to impute income to father, who was voluntarily underemployed, and the appellate court remanded the case for recalculation of maintenance.
For more information about family law, see ADOPTION LAW (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.