Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Blumenthal jointly owned her Chicago home with Brewer, her domestic partner since 1981. In 2010 Blumenthal sought partition of the residence when the relationship ended. Brewer counterclaimed for common-law remedies, including an interest in Blumenthal’s ownership share in a medical group so that their overall assets would be equalized. Blumenthal moved to dismiss the counterclaim under the Illinois Supreme Court’s 1979 Hewitt decision, which rejected a woman’s suit to divide assets she accumulated with a man during a long-term relationship in which they lived together, had children together, but never married. Brewer argued that it was “particularly irrational” to apply this principle to her because she and Blumenthal could not marry at the time their relationship ended because same-sex marriage was not recognized in Illinois. The counterclaim was dismissed; the partition action proceeded to final judgment. The appellate court vacated the dismissal, calling Hewitt “outmoded and ill-considered.” The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the trial court decision. The legislature intended marriage to be the only legally protected family relationship under Illinois law. Permitting unmarried partners to enforce mutual property rights might “encourage formation of such relationships and weaken marriage as the foundation of our family-based society.” Marriage is a legal relationship that all individuals may or may not enter into, Illinois does not act irrationally or discriminatorily in refusing to grant benefits and protections under the Marriage and Dissolution Act to those who do not participate in that institution. View "Blumenthal v. Brewer" on Justia Law

The guardian ad litem (GAL) for the minor, A.A., petitioned the circuit court to vacate a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity (VAP) signed by respondents Matthew A. and Caitlin S. with regard to A.A. The appellate court affirmed and held that after DNA testing established that Matthew was not the biological father of A.A., the trial court was not required to make a “best interests of the child” determination prior to granting the petition. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re A.A." on Justia Law

Goossens, a police sergeant, was convicted of intimidation, a Class 3 felony (720 ILCS 5/12-6(a)(6)), after he threatened not to respond to 911 calls from a local auto racetrack as long as two former police officers were employed at the facility. He was sentenced to a term of two years’ probation. The probation order contained numerous conditions, one of which required that Gossens “shall become current in his child support in case number 2002 D 528.” He appealed, arguing the trial court lacked the authority under section 5-6-3(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections to include the payment of child support as a condition of probation, 730 ILCS - 2 - 5/5-6-3(b). The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The defense’s attempted construction contradicted prior interpretation of the plain language of the Code, which says, “[t]he Court may ... require that the person ... support his dependents.” View "People v. Goossens" on Justia Law

Shelley and Christopher married in 1992. Shelley works in the private sector and has Social Security tax withheld from her pay; she expects to receive full benefits in 2033 at age 67. Christopher works for the police department and does not have Social Security tax withheld. He contributes to the Police Pension Fund and can retire with full benefits in 2017 at age 50. In their 2012 divorce, Christopher computed the estimated present value of his pension benefits, using a “Windfall Elimination Provision” to determine what part of those benefits were in lieu of Social Security, which is exempt from equitable distribution. Using Christopher’s wages, as if covered by Social Security, predicted that his Social Security benefit at age 67 would be $1,778 per month; using his wages for those years in which he contributed to Social Security, predicted that his benefit at age 67 would be $230 per month. The difference of $1,548 was posited as “in lieu of Social Security.” The difference between that amount and the pension amount was $2,479 per month, with an estimated present value of $639,720.74. The court determined that the proposed valuation would violate federal law as interpreted by Illinois Supreme Court precedent. Christopher recalculated the present value of his pension, without the offset, as $991,830. The court adopted that figure, and awarded Shelley about 35%. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that Social Security benefits cannot be calculated until the participant collects them. Decreasing Shelley’s share of Christopher’s pension based on the present value of hypothetical Social Security benefits that, even if he had participated in that program, he might never receive is illogical and inequitable. Failing to consider Social Security may paint an unrealistic picture of their future finances, but Congress intended to keep those benefits out of divorce cases. View "In re Marriage of Mueller" on Justia Law

In 1999, Maria and Jim began living together. During a 2003 trip to Slovakia to visit family, Maria met Scarlett, an orphan born in 1999. Under Slovakian law, Jim was not permitted to adopt Scarlett because he was neither a Slovakian national nor married to Maria. Maria commenced the year-long adoption process and lived in Slovakia during that time. Jim financially supported the process, traveled there five times, and participated in a psychological evaluation. In 2004, Maria adopted Scarlett under Slovakian law, and the three returned to Elmhurst, Illinois. Scarlett used the hyphenated form of their last names. Scarlett referred to Jim as “daddy.” Jim’s name appears in Scarlett’s school records as Scarlett’s father. Jim paid all family expenses; he established a $500,000 irrevocable trust for Scarlett. In 2008, Maria moved out of Jim’s home, taking Scarlett. Jim sought a declaration of parental rights. Jim also alleged common law contract claims. The circuit court dismissed Jim’s common law claims and concluded that Jim lacked standing and was not subject to paying child support. The appellate court reversed, holding that the equitable adoption doctrine might present a potentially viable theory of standing , but affirmed the dismissal of Jim’s contract claims. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the doctrine of equitable adoption, previously recognized in a will contest, does not apply to child custody proceedings. View "In re Parentage of Scarlett Z.-D." on Justia Law

A brief relationship between mother, a Missouri resident, and father, an Illinois resident, resulted in a child, L.M., born in Missouri in 2009. In 2010, father sought to establish the existence of a father-child relationship and to obtain joint custody under the Illinois Parentage Act (750 ILCS 45/1), which allows parentage actions to be brought in the county in which any party resides. Mother filed an appearance. Both attended the hearing and stated that they had entered into a joint parenting agreement. The court entered its judgment, incorporating the agreement, in which they submitted themselves to the court's jurisdiction. Father began a military tour of duty. Upon leaving the service in 2012, he was able to visit L.M. frequently in Missouri. In November 2012, mother moved to Las Vegas, taking L.M. Father sought custody. Mother filed suit in Nevada, asserting that the Illinois judgment was void due to lack of Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (750 ILCS 36/101] subject matter jurisdiction. At her request, the Champaign County circuit court vacated its 2010 order and dismissed father’s complaint. The appellate court vacated, holding that compliance with the statute was not a prerequisite to jurisdiction. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. As used in the statute, “jurisdiction” is a procedural limit on when the court may hear initial custody matters, not a precondition to the exercise of its inherent authority. Determination of who should have custody of L.M. presented a justiciable matter that fell within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Once a court has subject matter jurisdiction, its judgment will not be rendered void merely because of an error in its determination of the facts or application of the law. View "McCormick v. Robertson" on Justia Law

Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, seeking joint custody of the couple’s three children. The circuit court appointed attorney Rosenberg to represent the children, under 750 ILCS 5/506(a)(3). Husband sought to set a temporary parenting schedule, stating that he and wife were unable to reach agreement. At the hearing, Rosenberg stated that the parties had agreed on a schedule, but had failed to agree on conditions of visitation. Rosenberg presented a proposed order. Wife objected on the basis that it infringed on her right to parent and communicate with her children. The court entered the order, which “enjoin[ed]” the parties from: striking, threatening or interfering with the personal liberty of the children; discussing any aspect of the pending litigation in the presence of the children; discussing with the children their preferences as to custody or visitation; questioning, discussing, or coaching the children with regard to testimony or interviews; questioning the children with regard to the conduct or expenditures of the other party; engaging in all forms of recording or electronic surveillance of the other party or of the children; using alcohol or nonprescription drugs in the presence of the children; allowing an unrelated member of the opposite sex to reside overnight in a residence while the children are present; disparaging either party; and removing the children from the state without consent. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Illinois Supreme Court dismissed an appeal as moot because the divorce had been granted, so the order was no longer in effect. View "In re Marriage of Eckersall" on Justia Law

Iris and Steven have two sons, Nathaniel, born in 1997, and Jacob, born in 1999. Iris filed a divorce petition. The court entered an agreed judgment dissolving the marriage, providing for unallocated maintenance and child support, joint custody, and that Steven would provide the medical insurance for the children and cover 50% of their out-of-pocket medical and dental costs. Steven and Iris frequently returned to court and in 2010 the court granted temporary physical custody to Steven, limited Iris to supervised visitation, and made a one-time reduction in the amount Steven was paying for child support. Steven filed a petition under 750 ILCS 5/510, asking that his obligation to pay child support to Iris be terminated. Steven was required to pay $700 per month “based upon the current parenting schedule.” Steven subsequently asked the court to order Iris to pay child support to him or to temporarily terminate the obligation on the grounds that the boys’ schedules eliminated any expenses Iris might have. The trial court entered an agreed order which specified that Steven was to have “the sole care, custody, control and education” of the boys. Iris was granted visitation with Nathan for dinner on Wednesdays. With Jacob, she had weekly visits from Monday to Wednesday mornings, plus alternating weekends. Steven earned $150,000 per year while Iris earned than $10,000 per year. The court ordered Steven to pay Iris child support of $600 per month and made him “solely responsible for all uncovered medical, dental, orthodontia, psychological and optical expenses for the children.” The appellate court rejected Steven’s contention that section 505 does not authorize orders to pay child support to noncustodial parents and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Steven to pay child support, but that the award $600 per month, was not justified by the record. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the authority of the circuit court to order Steven to pay child support and remanded for a hearing regarding the amount. The court reversed modification of the support order requiring Steven to pay the full amount of any of the children’s medical and dental expenses not covered by insurance.View "In re Marriage of Turk" on Justia Law

The day after N’s birth, the baby’s mother, Nichole, and her boyfriend, Alfred, executed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity (VAP), expressly imposing responsibility on Alfred to provide financial support. The VAP did not grant Alfred a right to custody or visitation, but it did provide him the right to seek custody or visitation. Alfred was also entitled to notices of adoption proceedings. Both Nichole and Alfred had the right to rescind the VAP within 60 days. The VAP explicitly waived Alfred’s right to genetic testing. Three days later, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) took N into protective custody. DCFS filed a petition alleging juvenile neglect, identifying Nichole as N’s mother and Alfred as N’s father. The circuit court entered an order for temporary shelter care, placed N in the custody of DCFS, appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL), entered an order identifying Alfred as the “legal” father based on the VAP, and appointed separate counsel for Nichole and Alfred. Following genetic testing, the court granted the state’s motion and dismissed Alfred, based on evidence that he is not N’s biological father. The appellate court reversed, holding that the state did not have standing in a juvenile neglect proceeding (705 ILCS 405/1-1) to challenge the paternity of a man who signed a VAP under the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984 (750 ILCS 45/1). The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re N.C., a Minor" on Justia Law

The Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/607(e), prohibits a non-custodial parent who has been convicted of a sexual offense perpetrated on a victim less than 18 years of age from obtaining court-ordered visitation with his children while serving his sentence and until successfully completing “a treatment program approved by the court.” A child abuse report was made to a hot line, alleging that Donald had sexually abused an unrelated minor. Donald pled guilty and was sentenced to two years’ probation. Donald was required to register as a sex offender, to provide a DNA sample, and to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, but not required to obtain sex offender treatment. A court subsequently granted Donald’s ex-wife sole custody of their children suspended Donald’s visitation pursuant to section 607(e) Donald argued that a parent’s right to visitation with his child is a fundamental right, which the state may not abridge unless there is a compelling state interest and a finding that denying visitation is in the child’s best interest. The court agreed and found the law unconstitutional. The Illinois Supreme Court vacated, finding the matter moot. Donald successfully completed his probation. His cooperative participation in the sex offender evaluation, plus the evaluator’s assessment and recommendation that no further treatment was necessary, were sufficient to show compliance with section 607(e)’s requirement that he “successfully complete a treatment program approved by the court.” The court declined to apply the “public interest" exception.View "In re Marriage of Donald B." on Justia Law