Collins v. The Department of Health and Human Services
2014 IL App (2d) 130536
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- IDPA issued a 1997 paternity order identifying Collins as the minor’s biological father and ordering child support to Paczek.
- Paczek and the minor moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee; Collins relocated to the Columbus, Ohio area.
- In 2009 Collins sought modification of child support; the trial court allowed IDHFS to intervene for support issues and later transferred the matter to Tennessee after finding no Illinois residency.
- A 2010 custody/visitation order allocated medical premium payments and uncovered medical expense sharing; Collins paid the majority of travel expenses.
- In 2012 Collins sought to abate/reduce support and served discovery; the trial court transferred all remaining matters to Tennessee, finding no Illinois residence.
- Collins moved to reconsider in 2013 arguing continuing Illinois jurisdiction under UIFSA; the court denied, concluding no nexus to Illinois and no continuing jurisdiction to modify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Illinois court had jurisdiction to modify the support order under UIFSA. | Collins contends Illinois retains continuing exclusive jurisdiction to modify when in-record consent or nexus exists. | IDHFS contends Illinois loses modification jurisdiction once parties and child reside outside Illinois. | Illinois loses modification jurisdiction once all parties leave Illinois. |
| Whether the trial court erred in dismissing Collins's petition to modify. | Collins argues the court retained jurisdiction to modify under UIFSA. | IDHFS maintains no modification jurisdiction after nonresidency in Illinois. | Dismissal affirmed for the modification petition. |
| Whether Illinois retains authority to enforce an existing order after parties leave the state. | Collins asserts Illinois can enforce the order it issued. | IDHFS argues enforcement may be limited as jurisdiction shifts to other states. | Illinois retains enforcement jurisdiction until another state assumes it. |
| Whether the October 10, 2012 indirect contempt petition was properly decided. | Collins sought to enforce health insurance and travel expense provisions. | IDHFS disputed the need to respond and questioned ongoing Illinois enforcement. | Petition for indirect civil contempt was proper to the extent of enforcing the existing order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zaabel v. Konetski, 209 Ill. 2d 127 (2004) (holding that only enforcement, not modification, remains when all parties leave issuing state)
- In re Marriage of Best, 228 Ill. 2d 107 (2008) (statutory interpretation of UIFSA provisions and jurisdictional concepts)
- In re Marriage of Gulla, 234 Ill. 2d 414 (2009) (promotes unity and structure in modification/enforcement of child-support orders)
- Haugh v. California, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (California court: after parties leave state, no continuing jurisdiction to modify without consent)
- Jurado v. Brashear, 782 So.2d 575 (La. 2001) (Louisiana court adopts similar UIFSA approach to modification jurisdiction)
- LeTellier v. LeTellier, 40 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2001) (UIFSA considerations on jurisdiction in Tennessee)