McClure v. Haisha
51 N.E.3d 831
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Brian McClure (father) and Alix Haisha (mother) are unmarried parents of Jessica; Brian signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity. Prior agreed orders had required Brian to pay Alix substantial monthly child support while Alix had sole legal custody.
- In July 2014 the trial court awarded Brian sole legal custody and kept the existing child support provisions in effect; Brian did not immediately move to modify support.
- In October 2014 Brian moved to terminate or reduce his child support obligation and to have Alix pay at least the $10/mo statutory minimum under the Parentage Act; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing in February 2015.
- The court found a substantial change in circumstances (change in legal custody), reduced Brian’s support from $5,000 to $4,000/mo (retroactive to Jan. 1, 2015), and declined to impose any child support obligation on Alix, stating Brian had not sought that relief at hearing.
- On appeal the court affirmed the modification to Brian’s obligation but held the record showed Brian had requested the statutory $10 minimum from Alix and that section 14 of the Parentage Act mandates that noncustodial parents be ordered to pay at least $10/month. The court therefore modified Brian’s obligation to $3,990/mo (offsetting Alix’s $10/mo obligation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McClure) | Defendant's Argument (Haisha) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a custodial parent may be ordered to pay child support | Brian conceded custody change but argued his support should be terminated or reduced because he became custodial parent | Alix relied on existing order and statutory duty of both parents to support the child | Court: Section 505 permits ordering either or both parents to pay; custodial status is not dispositive — custodial parent may be ordered to pay (Turk controlling) |
| Whether trial court could impose support on Alix absent her filing a petition | Brian contended Parentage Act imposes a $10 minimum on noncustodial parent even if she did not file | Alix argued no prior judgment against her and that section 16/510 governs modifications; asserted trial court erred without her petition | Court: Brian had requested $10 in writing; even if ambiguous at hearing, statute requires initial determination for noncustodial parent — court must impose $10 minimum |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in amount of Brian’s modified support | Brian argued support was excessive and amounted to a windfall to Alix | Alix argued she needed the support to maintain a home for the child during her parenting time; substantial income disparity favored support to her | Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered incomes, needs, credibility; $4,000 roughly aligns with 20% guideline for one child, so reduction to $4,000 was affirmed (then offset) |
| Whether appellate court should alter trial court order to reflect statutory minimum from Alix | Brian asked the appellate court to impose the $10 minimum on Alix and offset his obligation accordingly | Alix argued section 14 applies only to initial orders and modification governed by other provisions; she disputed relevance | Court: Imposed $10/month on Alix under section 14 and reduced Brian’s monthly obligation by that offset to $3,990 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Turk, 2014 IL 116730 (Illinois Supreme Court) (section 505 allows court to order either or both parents to pay support; custodial status not dispositive)
- In re Marriage of Sassano, 337 Ill. App. 3d 186 (App. Ct. Ill.) (party moving to modify child support bears burden to justify change)
- Department of Public Aid ex rel. Nale v. Nale, 294 Ill. App. 3d 747 (App. Ct. Ill.) (discusses parentage/support issues in nonmarital contexts)
- In re Marriage of Blaisdell, 142 Ill. App. 3d 1034 (App. Ct. Ill.) (older appellate authority on support issues)