Judge Elizabeth D. Hoskins Dow Judges’ Panel Judge John Dalton Judge Elizabeth D. Hoskins Dow Judge John McAdams

Presenters Anna Leonard, AAG Jeremiah Stephan, AAG Kimberly Rossini, AAG

HYPO 1: Support was set in 2003 by agreement at $100.00 per month based on obligor’s $1,200 monthly income from social security disability. Obligor paid sporadically and now has a large arrearage. After the child emancipates, HFS files a Petition to Determine Arrearage alleging $65,000 in past due support. Obligor admits to the arrearage, but wants his repayment amount to remain the same. He files a financial affidavit stating that his only income is the original $1,200 a month from social security disability. He asks the court to keep his repayment amount at $100.00 per month. HFS objects and both sides issue discovery.

HYPO 1: Obligee fails to respond, stops coming to court, and never files her financial affidavit. Obligor responds and his bank records show consistent cash deposits varying from $1,500 to $4,500 over a 14 month period. The total amount of the cash deposits is $45,000. At a status conference, obligor admits on the record that the cash deposits are from video poker winnings. At the final hearing, the only issue before the court the amount of obligor’s repayment. Obligor testifies that he stopped playing video poker three months ago and offers new bank records into evidence showing the cash deposits have stopped.

HYPO 1: At what amount should obligor’s repayment be set? 1. Can the court set an arrearage repayment without proof of the obligee’s income? 2. Can the court impute income on an obligor based on a history of gambling winnings?

HYPO 2 Obligor owes back child support in the amount of $25,000 and owes current support in the amount of $250.00 per month. Her driver’s license has been suspended administratively since 2015. She has a new job and wants her license reinstated so she can drive back and forth to work. Obligor files a motion to have her license reinstated. The Obligee agrees the Obligor’s license should be reinstated, but still wants HFS to enforce child support. HFS objects as Obligor has not exhausted her administrative remedies. 1. Should Obligor’s license be reinstated as the parties have an agreement? 2. Why must she exhaust her administrative remedies?

HYPO 3 Obligor Smith has four child support cases in Apple County, Illinois. Cases with Ms. Ash, Ms. Baker, and Ms. Casey are modifications. The current support in each case is set at $0 as Mr. Smith was previously unemployed, but now has gainful employment. The case with Ms. Davis is an initial establishment case.   Each Obligee has 1 child with the Obligor. Mr. Smith’s gross monthly income is $2865.00. Mr. Smith also has 4 children residing in his home in which child support is not being set. The children residing with Mr. Smith are younger than the children with Ms. Ash, Ms. Baker and Ms. Casey, but older than the children with Ms. Davis. All four cases are set on the same date. Health insurance is not being addressed.

HYPO 3 Ash vs. Smith: Ms. Ash’s gross monthly income is $2265.00 and she has 1 other child residing with her. The child in this case was born in 2009 and has had an open case since 2009.   Baker vs. Smith: Ms. Baker’s gross monthly income is $1732 and she has 3 other children residing with her. The child in this case was born in 2010 and has had an open case since 2010. Casey vs. Smith: Ms. Casey’s gross monthly income is $1430; she has no other children. The child in this case was born in 2011 and has had an open case since 2011. Davis vs. Smith: Ms. Davis has no income as her only source of income is TANF and she has 3 other children residing with her. The child in this case was born in 2018 and this is a new establishment case.

HYPO 3 In re Marriage of Potts, 297 Ill. App. 3d 110 (3rd Dist. 1998). 1. Is the Potts case still good law? In re Marriage of Potts, 297 Ill. App. 3d 110 (3rd Dist. 1998). 2. When running the calculations, whose case do you set first? How do you calculate the cases?

750 ILCS 5/505(a)(1) The child support guidelines have the following purposes: (A) to establish as State policy an adequate standard of support for a child, subject to the ability of parents to pay; (B) to make child support obligations more equitable by ensuring more consistent treatment of parents in similar circumstances; (C) to improve the efficiency of the court process by promoting settlements and giving courts and the parties guidance in establishing levels of child support; (D) to calculate child support based upon the parents' combined net income estimated to have been allocated for the support of the child if the parents and child were living in an intact household; (E) to adjust child support based upon the needs of the child; and (F) to allocate the amount of child support to be paid by each parent based upon a parent's net income and the child's physical care arrangements.

Potts Example Calc 1: Mr. Smith would pay Ms. Ash $472.43 Calc 2: getting a credit for payments to Ms. Ash (473.43) Mr. Smith would pay Ms. Baker $387.80 Calc 3: getting a credit for payments to Ms. Ash and Ms. Baker (860.23) Mr. Smith would pay Ms. Casey $307.04 Calc 4: getting a credit for payments to Ms. Ash, Ms. Baker and Ms. Casey (1167.27) and NOT getting credit for the children in the home Mr. Smith would pay Ms. Davis $249.00 Total payments: $1416.27 • A difference of over $200 between the oldest and youngest children

750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3) (F) Adjustments to income. (I) Multi-family adjustment. If a parent is also legally responsible for support of a child not shared with the other parent and not subject to the present proceeding, there shall be an adjustment to net income as follows: (i) Multi-family adjustment with court order. The court shall deduct from the parent's net income the amount of child support actually paid by the parent pursuant to a support order unless the court makes a finding that it would cause economic hardship to the child. (ii) Multi-family adjustment without court order. Upon the request or application of a parent actually supporting a presumed, acknowledged, or adjudicated child living in or outside of that parent's household, there shall be an adjustment to child support. The court shall deduct from the parent's net income the amount of financial support actually paid by the parent for the child or 75% of the support the parent should pay under the child support guidelines (before this adjustment), whichever is less, unless the court makes a finding that it would cause economic hardship to the child. The adjustment shall be calculated using that parent's income alone.

Mr. Smith would pay $294.45 / month to Ms. Ash Mr. Smith would pay $235.20/month to Ms. Baker Mr. Smith would pay $199.27/month to Ms. Casey Mr. Smith would pay $173/month to Ms. Davis   Total Payments for all 4 cases: $901.92

…The court shall deduct from the parent's net income the amount of financial support actually paid by the parent for the child or 75% of the support the parent should pay under the child support guidelines (before this adjustment), whichever is less, unless the court makes a finding that it would cause economic hardship to the child. The adjustment shall be calculated using that parent's income alone. 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3)(F)(ii)

For example, with a net income of $2293/month obligor would pay $495 for 1 child and 75% of that amount is $371.25 / month • This amount would be his obligation for each child with Ms. Baker, Ms. Casey and Ms. Davis using his income alone when determining support for Ms. Ash **371.25 x 3 = $1113.75 • 75% of what he would pay for the 4 kids in his home would still be $766.50 (75% of 1022)

Calc 1: Mr. Smith would pay $89.60 / month to Ms. Ash Calc 2: Mr. Smith would pay $151.03/month to Ms. Baker Calc 3: Mr. Smith would pay $198.56/month to Ms. Casey Calc 4: Mr. Smith would pay $238/month to Ms. Davis   Total Payments for all 4 cases: $677.19

Calc 1: Mr. Smith would pay $40 / month to Ms. Davis Calc 2: Mr. Smith would pay $159.67/month to Ms. Casey   Calc 3: Mr. Smith would pay $206.02/month to Ms. Baker Calc 4: Mr. Smith would pay $240.46/month to Ms. Ash Total Payments for all 4 cases: $646.15

Example 2 VS . Example 3 Ms. Ash 89.60 240.46 Ms. Baker 151.03 206.02 Ms. Casey 198.56 159.67 Ms. Davis 238.00 40.00 Total Paid 677.19 646.15

Calc 1: Mr. Smith will pay $200.35 to Ms. Ash Calc 2: Mr. Smith will pay $193.28 to Ms. Baker Calc 3: Mr. Smith will pay $191.50 to Ms. Casey Calc 4: Mr. Smith will pay $206 to Ms. Davis Total amounts for all 4 cases = $791.13 **MFA w/out an order for the 4 children living with Mr. Smith is $766.50

Example 2 VS . Example 4 Ms. Ash 89.60 200.36 Ms. Baker 151.03 193.28 Ms. Casey 198.56 191.50 Ms. Davis 238.00 206.00 Total Paid 677.19 791.13

Calc 1: Mr. Smith will pay $195/month to Ms. Davis   Calc 2: Mr. Smith will pay $190.25 to Ms. Casey Calc 3: Mr. Smith will pay $194.59 to Ms. Baker Calc 4: Mr. Smith will pay $201.38 to Ms. Davis Total amount for all 4 cases is $781.22

Example 3 VS . Example 5 Ms. Ash 240.46 201.38 Ms. Baker 206.02 194.59 Ms. Casey 159.67 190.25 Ms. Davis 40.00 195.00 Total Paid 646.15 781.22

Example 4 VS . Example 5 Ms. Ash 200.35 201.38 Ms. Baker 193.28 194.59 Ms. Casey 191.50 190.25 Ms. Davis 206.00 195.00 Total Paid 791.13 781.22