2014 IL App (2d) 130536
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- 1997: Illinois administrative order declared Gary Collins the father of A.C. and ordered child support to Wendy Paczek.
- 2008–2010: Paczek and child moved to Nashville, Tennessee; Collins later moved to Columbus, Ohio.
- 2009–2010: Illinois court entered agreed orders addressing support, custody, health-insurance contributions ($50/mo by Paczek) and travel-cost splits; IDHFS intervened for Paczek.
- Sept. 5, 2012: Collins filed a petition to abate/reduce support in Du Page County and served discovery on IDHFS.
- Oct. 10, 2012: Collins filed a petition for indirect civil contempt against Paczek for failing to pay her share of health insurance and travel expenses.
- Dec. 19, 2012: Trial court, on its own motion, transferred/dismissed matters to Tennessee because neither party resided in Illinois; trial court expressly found it did not retain continuing jurisdiction to enforce child support. Collins appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois court retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the child-support order after obligor, obligee, and child left Illinois | Collins: Illinois retains continuing jurisdiction under UIFSA (or under Parentage/Marriage Acts) and IDHFS’s filings did not withdraw jurisdiction | IDHFS: Once obligor, obligee, and child no longer reside in Illinois, the issuing court loses authority to modify under UIFSA; only enforcement may remain until another state assumes jurisdiction | Court: Affirmed that Illinois lost continuing exclusive jurisdiction to modify once all parties left Illinois; Collins’s modification petition dismissed |
| Whether Illinois court retained jurisdiction to enforce (indirect contempt) the prior support order after parties left Illinois | Collins: Trial court retained enforcement jurisdiction under UIFSA and related statutes; contempt proceeding sought enforcement, not modification | IDHFS/Trial court: No continuing jurisdiction (trial court had held it did not retain enforcement jurisdiction) | Court: Reversed dismissal of contempt petition — issuing state retains jurisdiction to enforce existing orders until another state obtains continuing exclusive jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Zaabel v. Konetski, 209 Ill. 2d 127 (Ill. 2004) (issuer loses modification jurisdiction when obligor, obligee, and child leave, but retains enforcement jurisdiction)
- Jurado v. Brashear, 782 So. 2d 575 (La. 2001) (issuing state cannot modify after all parties leave)
- In re Marriage of Haugh, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (collecting authorities concluding issuing tribunal loses modification jurisdiction once all parties and child leave)
- In re Marriage of Wareham, 791 N.W.2d 562 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) (noting minority view that issuing state retains modification jurisdiction absent consents)