2017 and 2016 Family Law Changes

Changes to Illinois Family Law Provisions for 2107 and 2016

2017 Updates to Child Support Laws

Prior to July 2017, Illinois courts determined the amount of child support payments using a straightforward calculation of a percentage of the paying parent's net income. On July 1, 2017, this system was done away with when an update to the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA) went into effect. Illinois now uses an income-sharing system that bases child support on both parents' incomes and each parent's percentage share of their combined income. Courts will also consider each parent's amount of parenting time and parental responsibility, and parents may be required to contribute to their children's healthcare, childcare, and extracurricular expenses.

2016 Updates to Child Custody and Visitation Laws

For the last four decades, the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA) has provided the primary legal basis for most family law concerns throughout the state. Although the IMDMA has been gradually revised since it was originally enacted, many of its provisions have remained relatively untouched for almost 40 years. In the spring of 2015, however, the Illinois State Legislature passed a measure that looked to substantially update the IMDMA on several different areas of focus. Senate Bill 57 was signed by the governor in August 2015, with the sweeping amendments set to take effect on January 1, 2016.

Child Custody vs. Allocation of Parental Responsibilities

The updated IMDMA provides a new way for parents and the courts to think about raising a child following a aivorce, separation, or break-up. The previous version of the law provided two options for parenting situations: sole custody or joint custody. In a sole custody arrangement, one parent would be granted all of the authority for important decision-making regarding the child, while such responsibilities would be shared by both parents under a joint custody order. Titles such as custodial and non-custodial parent tended to imply that one parent was more important than the other, often leading to bitter, drawn-out battles over child custody.

Going forward, the entire concept of child custody has been replaced with a more fluid, more cooperative allocation of parental responsibilities. Orders will not be classified as sole or joint custody, nor will either party be labeled as a custodial or non-custodial parent. Instead, parents are expected to work together in raising their child, with each parent’s rights being fully respected and protected. However, one party will be considered the primary residential parent with the majority of parental responsibility, for purposes of child support, determining school district, etc.

In any such proceeding, the court expects divorcing or separating parents to present a proposed parenting plan, outlining the significant decision-making responsibilities each parent will have. The plan must also include a schedule for each parent’s time with the child, and a means for resolving future disagreements. If an agreement cannot be reached, the court is granted the discretion to allocate parental responsibilities between the parents as deemed to be in the child’s best interest.

Parental Visitation Now Called Parenting Time

Under the new IMDMA guidelines, one parent will typically be granted a majority of the parenting time so as to provide the child with a stable basis for school attendance and as the basis for a child support order. While the previous law presumed a parent’s right to reasonable visitation with his or her child, the amended law recognizes that a parent is much more than a temporary visitor in a child’s life. As such, the wording in the law has been changed, and a parent is now presumed to have the right to reasonable parenting time with the child, regardless of the amount of significant decision-making responsibilities he or she may have been allocated. In the event a court determines that a parent’s time with the child presents a danger to the child, it may impose limitations or restrictions to keep the child safe.

If you have questions regarding the newly-updated Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, it is important to speak with a qualified legal professional. Contact us to schedule a free initial consultation today. We are proud to serve clients from our offices located in Wheaton, Illinois.

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF K

- This matter involved another post decree situation where Salvatore C. Miglore represented the former wife, whom instituted post judgment proceedings to establish a child support arrearage; and, to set the proper amount of child support for three minor children. Further, the wife filed a petition to remove the children to the State of Wisconsin for her to secure new employment. The Husband was a convicted felon, served prison time, and was an allegedly self employed contractor. He never complied with discovery requests, so again, a forensic accountant and private investigator were consulted to establish a correct amount of income and to locate assets. Thus, through the process it was discovered that several bank accounts and assets existed, of which were never disclosed, and significant fraud committed by the Husband in under reporting his income. In this case, after the trial began, and it became apparent to the Husband that he had a serious problem, the case was settled where he withdrew his objection to the removal of the children to the State of Wisconsin to relocate with the Wife. Also, a child support arrearage was established with a payment plan, current support was set at the proper amounts, and, the enter matter was resolved.

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF M AND L

- Salvatore C. Miglore represented the former wife in this matter, where the case involved a post judgment custody petition filed by the Husband seeking custody of the three minor children, which was motivated by the wife moving from Kane County to Lake County; and, the wife’s petition for an increase in child support and to set an arrearage on the back due amounts the Husband owed. The Husband was self-employed as a house painter and did not provide accurate income records; nor did he properly disclose a current amount of income, in order to get an accurate amount of support. Thus, Salvatore C. Miglore retained a forensic accountant and a private investigator; plus, issued many subpoenas for records, where several secreated bank accounts were discovered; plus personal financial statements of which the husband provided to financial institutions to secure credit, where he represented his income to be over $120,000.00 a year. Also, assets were discovered transferred to third parties. Moreover, the forensic accountant was able to establish that the husband’s income was over 6 figures per year, using investigative and forensic accounting principles. Accordingly, on the day of trial, the Husband withdrew his petition for custody, agreed to a substantial child support arrearage, set the child support at the proper level; and he paid a substantial portion of the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs.

B vs. B

- Salvatore C. Miglore was retained for a Post Judgment Petition to Remove a 14 year old child to the State of Florida, in order to relocate with his mother and her new husband. The mother was the residential parent in a joint custody situation. Salvatore C. Miglore was the third attorney on the case, where all of the previous attorneys, including the Guardian ad Litem, who represented the interest of the minor, opposed the removal, because the father had a close relationship with the father. Also, because the mother was 61 years old, on her 3rd marriage, and the new husband was 72 years old, plus the fact that they met on the internet; plus they only saw each other in person about 5 times over 3 years, significantly complicated the removal request. In addition, there were several other legal problems with the case. However, after six months total of Salvatore C. Miglore being on the case, and retaining an expert psychologist to conduct a proper removal evaluation on the material facts focusing on the best interest of the child; and, thereafter, proceeding to seven days of trial, the Petition to Remove was granted; and, the mother was allowed to move to Florida with the minor child, “as it was in the child’s best interests”, after a careful weighing of all the evidence by the trial Judge. Further, a suitable visitation schedule with the father was ordered by the court, where the child would spend summers, holidays and breaks with the father in Illinois.