Pending Driver License Suspension Bill
Under the current law, family law and divorce court Judges are not forced to suspend the driver license of a person who owes past due support. The Judge is given discretion. There are only two counties in Illinois, Madison and Macon, where the Judges routinely suspend driver licenses as a substantial tool to force compliance with an order to pay child support.
There is a current bill pending in Springfield, House Bill 1747, which appears to have political support behind it so that it can be passed and sent to the Governor for his signature. Click on the word "Bill" above to go directly to the Illinois General Assembly webpage to see the full text and status of the bill. I encourage all who are owed child support to contact each of their state representatives to vote in favor of this bill.
The below is a portion of the text that deals with suspension of driver licenses:
Sec. 6-103. What persons shall not be licensed as drivers or
granted permits. The Secretary of State shall not issue, renew, or allow the
retention of any driver's license nor issue
any permit under
this Code:….
14. To any person who is 90 days or more delinquent in court ordered child support payments or has been adjudicated in arrears in an amount equal to 90 days'
obligation or more and who has been found in contempt of court for failure to pay the support, subject to the requirements and procedures of Article VII of Chapter 7 of
the Illinois Vehicle Code;
14.5. To any person certified by the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services as being 90 days or more delinquent in payment of support under an order of support entered by a court or administrative body of this or any other State, subject to the requirements and procedures of Article VII of Chapter 7 of this Code regarding those certifications;
(March 2006) Everything is now "net income" ?
The case In re: Marriage of Sharp appears to open the flood gates to allow all forms of money one obtains to be included in the determination of establishing child support. Click on the word "Sharp" to read the entire case. The following text pretty much sums it up:
Income is something that comes in as an increment or addition, a gain or profit that is usually measured in money, and increases the recipient's wealth. In re Marriage of Rogers, 213 Ill.2d 129, 136, 289 Ill.Dec. 610, 820 N.E.2d 386 (2004); In re Marriage of Worrall, 334 Ill.App.3d 550, 553-54, 268 Ill.Dec. 411, 778 N.E.2d 397 (2002). It is defined as any form of payment to an individual, regardless of its source, and regardless whether it is nonrecurring. Rogers, 213 Ill.2d at 138-39, 289 Ill.Dec. 610, 820 N.E.2d 386; In re Marriage of Lindman, 356 Ill. App.3d 462, 466, 291 Ill.Dec. 969, 824 N.E.2d 1219 (2005). The Act is to be liberally construed, and any resources available to the parties are to be used to promote the underlying purposes of the Act, including making reasonable provisions for spouses and minor children during and after litigation. 750 ILCS 5/102(5) (West 2004); In re Marriage of Brand, 123 Ill.App.3d 1047, 1052, 79 Ill.Dec. 483, 463 N.E.2d 1037 (1984). The Act creates a rebuttable presumption that all income, unless specifically excluded by the statute, is income for support purposes. Department of Public Aid ex rel. Jennings v. White, 286 Ill.App.3d 213, 218, 221 Ill.Dec. 561, 675 N.E.2d 985 (1997).
(May 2006) A Defense to Past Due Support??
A recent ruling by an appellate court has cast a new light for those hoping to to avoid penalties and financial hardship under certain circumstances. To even qualify the parent who was ordered to pay child support must have had possession of the child or children over an extended period of time. The complete analysis can be read by clicking the following case name, In Re the Marriage of Junkans. In short the court has opened the door for a fairness argument, in that a parent who has been taking care of the children should not have to pay child support to the parent who is not being responsible for the day to day care taking needs of children. To do otherwise would be to give such parent a windfall. It is important to note that such theory is in the beginning process and not to jump to conclusions that such a concept will apply to every situation.
(April 2006) No Limits on Child Support Enforcement
For many years I have been part of discussions with attorneys and Judges on the issue as to how long one has before they must file a court action to enforce an Illinois child support order to collect the child support payments owed to them. In Illinois and with almost every other state there are laws placing a time limit on how long one person can wait to seek a remedy for the wrong that they feel has been done to them. The technical phrase for this is called the "statute of limitation"
A recent ruling by the appellate court in Illinois has declared there is no statute of limitation on the collection of Illinois child support orders. Thus if you finally find the deadbeat after 30 years you can collect all the support owed not just the last 20 years as many attorneys have argued. It is important to note though that as of April 1, 2006 the ruling has not been made official but I expect such to be so by the end of the month if not sooner. The ruling can be read in its entirety by clicking the following case name In Re Marriage of Saputo
You can read about other Illinois child support cases and the Illinois child support laws by going to my Other Helpful Sites page.
(March 2006) EPPICard is it a good idea for you?
For those of you who have received your child support payments by check from the State Disbursement Unit please be cognizant of the action the state is taking to provide these funds by electronic deposit and will do so if you fail to contact them.
Each person who receives their funds by check is now being given the option to have the money sent by check, by electronic deposit to their personal account or through the use of an account provided by the state. This third option allows you to withdraw your money from a state account using an ATM like card called the "EPPIcard". This may be a good idea for some but the use of the card comes at a cost, a fee of $0.95 will be charged for each withdraw. This is a fee for the use of the card and may be in addition to the fee charged by the owner of the ATM machine. Therefore if one withdrew their money once a week throughout the year, the state will make just under $50.00 from your money.
Remember as the letter points out if you do nothing the state will take action and declare that you will have the EPPIcard. If you do not want this option and you still want your checks you MUST contact them and tell them so.