Parentage Removal — No Power to Enjoin Removal: The Illinois Parentage Act of 1984 did not give the courts the power to enjoin a parent of a non-marital child with joint custody from removing the child from Illinois.

But see:  Fisher v. Waldrop (Fourth Dist. 2005). In this case the Fourth District appellate court ruled that the trial court erred when it denied father’s petition to enjoin mother from removing child from Illinois to Indiana, and by allowing the mother to remove the child. The appellate court stated that because the trial court imposed the burden of proof on father rather than requiring mother to prove that the removal was in child’s best interests and because the mother had no petition for removal pending (having withdrawn it), the decision was against manifest weight of the evidence.

Visitation for Non-Marital Child Born During Marriage: IMDMA Section 609(a) which addresses visitation for a marital child, is also applicable to a nonmarital child and the father of a nonmarital child is entitled to a presumption of entitlement to reasonable visitation and thus the father of a marital child does not have the burden of proving that visitation is in the child's best interest.

Comment: Case contrary to strict construction type cases such as RMF and Tysl ruling that removal does not apply to parentage cases. Strict construction argument: Section 14 of the Parentage Act, states that the judgment "shall contain" or reserve a provision for child support. As to visitation, it states that the judgment "may contain provisions concerning the custody * * * and visitation privileges with the child.” On the other hand, §607(a) of the IMDMA states that a parent not granted custody is entitled to "reasonable visitation rights." Case is contrary to Gagnon (228 Ill.App.3d 424, 680 N.E.2d 509, (4^th Dist., 1997)) holding that in parentage proceedings visitation is a privilege and that therefore it is not necessary to prove serious endangerment to restrict visitation where no contact with the father for 8 years.

Discharge of Debt in Bankruptcy Proceedings and Modification of Support: Child support obligor's discharge in bankruptcy, which caused debt burden to shift to child support recipient, was a substantial change in circumstances warranting an increase in child support.

Step-Parent Visitation Limited to Circumstances in §607(b)(1.5): Grant of visitation with child to stepparent may be vacated when the facts of the case do not meet the conditions for visitation prescribed by the stepparent visitation statute, §607(b)(1.5) of the IMDMA. Conjunctive: 12 years old; 5 yrs. residence; parent deceased or disabled; child's wishes; providing care, etc., prior to petition.

Dissipation — No Personal Benefit from Gifts or Contributions: Contributions made to the Mormon church by wife after the breakdown of the marriage constituted dissipation where wife could not establish the contributions were made for a family purpose, despite the fact that wife derived no personal benefit from the contributions.

Comment: The marital estate was reimbursed 45% of the $16,000 contributions despite testimony by wife that husband never objected to attendance by wife and children at church. Case placed burden on wife to show husband consented to contributions.

Confidentiality of Mental Health Records Re Child Under Age 12: Written consent of only one parent is necessary for disclosure in a child custody proceeding of confidential records and communications under the Mental Health Act (IMHDDCA) For a child under twelve, one parent may waive the child's confidentiality and have the child's therapist testify.

Comment: Case consistent with previous cases such as IRMO Kerman, 253 Ill.App.3d 492, 624 N.E.2d 870 (2d Dist. 1993). Language of IMHDDCA uses word “parent” — not custodial parent. It even defines parent. Query: Statutes uses words “parent or guardian.” Confidentiality statute is disjunctive.

Ordering Non-Custodial Parent to Exercise Visitation: Non-custodial parent cannot be ordered to exercise visitation.

Failure to Pay Amounts Withheld — $100 per day Penalty Based on Each Missed Payment: Employer is subject to penalty of $100 per day for each day each child support payment is mailed late to payee. (The first six checks were mailed late to Mary as follows: first check, 69 days late, second check, 55 days late, third check 41 days late, fourth check, 27 days late, fifth check, 13 days late, sixth check, 2 days late. Thus the sum total of all days late for all pay periods was 207 days. Pursuant to 750 ILCS 28/35 which penalizes the employer $100 per day for late payments, the trial court fined Autozone $20,700 and the appellate court affirmed.)

Comment: Vrombaut v. Norcross Safety Products, 298 Ill.App.3d 560, 699 N.E.2d 155 (3d Dist. 1998), GDR 98-93, held that former IMDMA §706.1(G)(1) did not impose penalties for failing to withhold income initially. The case held that penalties apply only to payor's failure to tender payment of withholding to clerk. But see, Dunahee v. Chenoa Welding & Fabrication, Inc., 273 Ill.App.3d 201, 652 N.E.2d 438 (4th Dist. 1995). Note: admission in Grams re withholding.