ILLINOIS DIVORCE LAW BLOG

Child support is an important feature of divorce and parentage actions. The primary residential parents needs the financial support from the non-residential parent. The non-residential parent typically pays 20% of net income for one child, 28% for two children, 32% for three, and so on.

Often, the party paying statutory child support suffers a change of work circumstances..he or she is fired, laid off, or suffers an illness or injury that causes them to lose work. Paying on a support order then becomes impossible.

When a party paying on an order of support suffers a change in circumstances that he or she did not cause, the payor party must then file a petition to abate (interrupt) or modify the prior support order. Support orders are like runaway trains..they just keep on moving unless stopped, and it’s not enough to lose your job and hope to come to court a year later to expalin why you couldn’t pay support. The court will require that the unpaid support be paid back, even though your job loss was not your fault.

In Blisset v. Blisset, 123 Ill.3d 161, 526 N.E.2d 125 (Ill., 1998), the parties attempted to enter into an enforceable agreement whereby the mother waived her rights to future child support from the father in exchange for the father waiving his future rights to visit with the children. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the agreement was not an enforceable waiver between the parents since the parents were attempting to “bargain away their children’s interest.” Blisset, 123 Ill.2d at 168, 526 N.E.2d

The Blisset parents seem to have formed an agreement to bargain each other away. Dad essentially disappears from the lives of his children (and Mom), in exchange for Mom giving up her claim to financial support of the children. This is a very negative arrangement on many levels, and it’s not surprising the Court determined that an agreement like this is not consistent with Illinois’ best interest standard and public policy.
Continue reading →

One piece of advice from this news package was particularly good, among a lot of good information… the benefit of a job. Not only can a new job provide much needed new income to the new family system, but the social and emotional benefits of a well selected job can really help women mainstream back into the world (assuming they may have been homemakers previously), and provide new social contacts that help one navigate the emotional ups and downs of a new life.

One of my clients, who had not worked for many years, took a job with Crate & Barrel and found the experience very positive. The job was something of a stepping stone, but I believe it helped her adjust to her new life, and put some additional dollars into the family budget. She worked while her children were in school. The kids came home to a happier Mom, and Mom made some social contacts that helped her in her new life. Bravo to her!

The Law Offices of Michael F. Roe practices collaborative law, and our collablaw divorce clients have saved time, stress, and money. Sounds appealing, doesn’t it? How does a collabortative divorce work?

First, both spouses meet with their respective collaborative attorneys to discuss individual needs and concerns. Then, the couple and their attorneys meet in four-way sessions to reach a settlement without involving the court. Every issue – including property division, custody, and support – is put “on the table” in these sessions. Divorcing parties benefit from the skills, advice, and support of attorneys while striving to work things out in a positive, future-focused manner.

When a settlement is reached, we file the appropriate paperwork required by the court. The parties then reconvene for one final court date: the “prove up,” when the judgment and the agreements are presented to the judge for approval.

Child custody and guardianship are legal terms which are sometimes used to describe the legal and practical relationship between a parent and his or her child, such as the right of the parent to make decisions for the child, and the parent’s duty to care for the child.

Residence and contact issues typically arise in proceedings involving divorce (dissolution of marriage), annulment and other legal proceedings where children may be involved. In most jurisdictions the issue of which parent the child will reside with is determined in accordance with the best interests of the child standard.
Continue reading →

The Associated Press reports on an interesting case arising in Cook County. The divorced parties apparently have a Joint Parenting Agreement, providing for the parents to consult with each other over the major decisions in the child’s developmental life. Mom, in this case, wanted to have the 9 year old boy circumcised. Dad objected, and filed a petition in court to enjoin, or block, the procedure. The case is about the circumcision, but it also stands for the principle that a well drafted joint custody agreement has some teeth to it, that is, if the non-residential parent has some “say so” in the developmental life of the child, he must be more than a “consultant.” In this case, Dad didn’t want the boy to undergo the procedure involuntarily. I also understand that the boy himself did not want to be circumcised.

——AP——A judge has sided with a divorced father who did not want his 9-year-old son circumcised, in a case that has drawn attention from groups opposed to the surgical procedure.

Cook County Circuit Judge Jordan Kaplan’s ruling, issued Tuesday, said the boy can decide for himself about circumcision when he turns 18. Until then, there will be no circumcision, a surgery that removes the foreskin of the penis.

The Associated Press is not naming the parents to protect the child’s privacy. The father was born and raised in Poland; The mother is from Slovakia. Both now live in suburban Chicago.

A 2003 divorce decree gave the boy’s father the right to offer advice on medical decisions.

The father opposed circumcision because he believed it could cause his son long-term physical and psychological harm. The child’s mother wanted the procedure done to prevent recurring infections.

When the two could not resolve their dispute, the father sued to block the circumcision.
Continue reading →