Michelle A. Lawless
The Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC
161 N. Clark St. Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois
Telephone: (312) 741-1092
www.malfamilylaw.com; michelle@malfamilylaw.com.
Petition seeking designation of a custodial parent under Section 606.10 cannot be used as a vehicle to modify a child’s school placement. In a post-judgment dissolution of marriage action where the parties’ original Allocation Judgment reserved the naming of a designated custodian for purposes of Section 606.10, mother filed a petition to have herself named as the designated custodian. Pursuant to the original Allocation Judgment, the parties shared equal parenting time and had joint decision-making responsibilities. When the child reached school age, both parents moved into the attendance boundary of Chicago’s Alcott Elementary School in Lincoln Park and enrolled the child using the father’s address. The parties continued using that address for six years. Thereafter, mother moved to Wilmette and sought enrollment in suburban schools. She filed a petition requesting designation as custodial parent for school purposes under Section 606.10 and argued the requested change should be evaluated under a best-interests analysis. The trial court denied the petition and in doing so barred the testimony of her retained controlled expert. The Appellate Court affirmed finding that the parties had effectively designated the father as school custodian through years of consistent conduct including using his address as the residential address for Alcott Elementary and enrolling the child in school for six years. Because the mother’s true objective was to modify the choice of school, she was seeking modification of the parenting arrangement which required a joint decision, and such proceeding must be brought through a modification action under section 610.5 requiring proof of changed circumstances and best interests. In re Marriage of Brown and Sontag, 2026 IL App (1st) 242009.
In re Marriage of Brown and Sontag
Qualified retirement annuity may be reached to satisfy maintenance arrearage. In a protracted and acrimonious post-judgment action where husband repeatedly fell into arrears over many years with respect to his maintenance obligation, wife petitioned the court for a turnover order from husband’s qualified retirement annuity in order to satisfy his maintenance arrearage and interest due which exceeded $100,000. Neither party disputed that the account in question was a qualified retirement account. The issue centered on whether such account was exempt from attachment under the Income Withholding for Support Act. The trial court held that it was not and ordered the turnover of funds, and the Appellate Court affirmed. Section 15 of the Income Withholding for Support Act creates an explicit exception permitting collection from annuities, pensions, and retirement benefits when the obligation arises from child support or maintenance. The Court rejected husband’s arguments that: (1) maintenance should be treated differently from child support; (2) the statute applies only to periodic income and not accumulated retirement assets; and (3) retirement funds remain protected until actually distributed. In re Marriage of Raine, 2026 IL App (3d) 250121.
In re Marriage of Raine
A parent who has no earned income and receives means-tested public benefits is entitled to a zero-dollar child support order. In a post-judgment child support modification matter brought by mother due to father’s alleged increase in income, the trial court heard evidence that mother received unreimbursed housing and living expenses from a friend/landlord in the amount of $26,870 annually. After a hearing on a motion to reconsider, the trial court ultimately concluded that the mother, who received means-tested assistance in the form of Medicaid and SNAP benefits, should be granted a $0 child support order. By assigning no income to mother, father’s child support obligation resulted in a $1,134 per month obligation to mother. Father appealed and the Appellate Court affirmed. A parent t with no earned income who receives means-tested public benefits is entitled to a zero-dollar child support order under section 505(a)(3.3b), even when another adult provides rent-free housing and pays certain living expenses. Such nonmonetary assistance did not constitute "income" under the specific facts presented. While acknowledging the broad interpretation of "income" under In re Marriage of Rogers 213 Ill.2d 129 (2004), the Court noted that case involved recipients who possessed actual earnings or financial resources that were enhanced by gifts. Here, the mother had no income and received means-tested assistance. The relevant inquiry was whether the alleged gift increased her ability to support the child financially. Because the mother’s nonmonetary housing benefit merely prevented destitution and did not create resources from which support could realistically be paid, the benefit did not constitute income under section 505(a)(3.3b). The court further reasoned that a contrary interpretation would undermine the statute’s purpose by penalizing indigent parents who rely on charity to survive. In re Parentage of A.C., 2026 IL App (2d) 250257.
In re Parentage of A.C.