In re Marriage of Turk
12 N.E.3d 40
Ill.2014Background
- Iris and Steven Turk divorced in 2005; judgment gave joint custody, children resided with Iris, and Steven paid unallocated maintenance/support and half of out-of-pocket medical/dental costs.
- After post-judgment disputes, Steven obtained temporary physical custody in 2010 and an agreed order later requiring him to pay $700/month support (based on parenting schedule).
- In 2012 an agreed custody order awarded Steven sole custody and gave Iris substantial visitation time with one child (nearly equal time for that child); court found Steven earned ~$150,000/year and Iris earned < $10,000/year.
- The circuit court then ordered Steven to pay Iris $600/month child support and to be solely responsible for all uncovered medical, dental, orthodontic, psychological, and optical expenses for the children.
- The appellate court affirmed that trial courts may order custodial parents to pay support, reversed the $600 award as unsupported by the record, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing explaining the basis for any award.
- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed that trial courts may order custodial parents to pay child support where warranted, affirmed remand on the $600 award, but reversed the allocation making Steven solely responsible for uncovered medical/dental costs and directed the trial court to revisit that allocation on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 505 permits ordering child support by a custodial parent to a noncustodial parent | Turk (appellee) argued §505 allows court to order either or both parents to pay support; custody alone should not immunize a parent from support obligations | Steven (appellant) argued §505 contemplates only noncustodial parents as payors and custodial parents cannot be ordered to pay support | Court held §505 permits ordering custodial parents to pay support where circumstances and child's best interests warrant it |
| Proper application of statutory guidelines when award may result in noncustodial parent receiving support | Iris argued the court’s award could stand (but appellate remand limited review) | Steven contended guidelines were misapplied and amount ($600) was unsupported | Appellate court reversed $600 award and remanded for evidentiary hearing; Supreme Court affirmed remand (no further review of amount) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by making custodial parent solely responsible for uncovered medical/dental expenses | Iris supported the modification requiring Steven to pay all uncovered medical/dental costs | Steven argued the allocation improperly ignored relative financial circumstances and was linked to support determination | Supreme Court reversed appellate court’s affirmance of that allocation and held allocation of medical/dental costs must be reconsidered with support obligations on remand |
| Proper analytic procedure under §505 when custodial parent may owe support | (Iris had little developed argument on procedural point) | Steven argued trial court improperly applied statutory percentages to the wealthier (custodial) parent rather than first applying guidelines to the noncustodial parent | Justice Theis (special concurrence) stressed that the statutory guidelines presumptively apply to the noncustodial parent as the starting point; courts must calculate presumptive obligation for noncustodial parent and then consider deviations that could produce a net payment from custodial parent |
Key Cases Cited
- Elble v. Elble, 100 Ill. App. 2d 221 (Ill. App. 1968) (upheld order requiring custodial parent to pay support)
- In re Marriage of Cesaretti, 203 Ill. App. 3d 347 (Ill. App. 1990) (affirmed support by custodial parent after balancing incomes and parenting time)
- Shoff v. Shoff, 179 Ill. App. 3d 178 (Ill. App. 1989) ( Fifth Dist. case holding custody award may eliminate support obligation as equitable matter)
- In re Marriage of Blaisdell, 142 Ill. App. 3d 1034 (Ill. App. 1986) (explains guidelines create rebuttable presumption tied to noncustodial parent; guidelines are starting point)
- Williamson v. Williamson, 748 S.E.2d 679 (Ga. 2013) (upheld that custodial parent can be ordered to pay support but emphasized correct procedural steps under guidelines)