Statement of Facts:
After the divorce of Ariela and Tim, they split custody 50/50. There was no child support set. Tim is alleging that Ariela is giving their daughter more “freedom” then their agreement. In doing so their daughter now wishes to live with her mother full time. Ariela is now seeks child support from Tim. While Tim says that Ariela has been pulling the child's attention away from him through text messages and phone calls. In addition, the mother also states that she needs the daughter to come back to the house for various things while their daughter is at Tim’s house. Ariela did not inform Tim of a drug and criminal activity occurrence their daughter was involved in the past. There have been other occurrences that the child …show more content…
He also argues that this amount would pay for half of the mother’s household expenses, while he is only legally obligated to pay for his child. His obligation does not include: the mother, her boyfriend and the other child. According to 750 ILCS 5/505(a) the minimum support for one child is 20% of the supporting party’s income. Department of Pub. Aid ex rel. Temple v. Van Kampen, at 768. Child support is not restricted to only the "shown needs" of the child. The parent with the higher income should cover the greater cost of supporting the child. The party must show evidence if they wish to challenge these guidelines. The court cited In re Marriage of Bussey, 142 Ill App. 3d 1034 (1986) where the court rejected the argument that the parent only needs to pay for basic needs of the child, when they are living far above the basic needs of their own. Department of Pub. Aid ex rel. Temple v. Van Kampen at …show more content…
The hearing was scheduled on June 24th 2013, but there was no judge available at the time. The Parents sat down and agreed that the father would have their son 3 weekends a month and one full week. The mother was to have the son the remainder of the time. In August 2015 the father filed another petition for emergency custody after the mothers husband filed an order of protection against her and she was staying in a hotel. The court dismissed and found the order was no longer needed since the mother went back to the
After the divorce of Ariela and Tim, they split custody 50/50. There was no child support set. Tim is alleging that Ariela is giving their daughter more “freedom” then their agreement. In doing so their daughter now wishes to live with her mother full time. Ariela is now seeks child support from Tim. While Tim says that Ariela has been pulling the child's attention away from him through text messages and phone calls. In addition, the mother also states that she needs the daughter to come back to the house for various things while their daughter is at Tim’s house. Ariela did not inform Tim of a drug and criminal activity occurrence their daughter was involved in the past. There have been other occurrences that the child …show more content…
He also argues that this amount would pay for half of the mother’s household expenses, while he is only legally obligated to pay for his child. His obligation does not include: the mother, her boyfriend and the other child. According to 750 ILCS 5/505(a) the minimum support for one child is 20% of the supporting party’s income. Department of Pub. Aid ex rel. Temple v. Van Kampen, at 768. Child support is not restricted to only the "shown needs" of the child. The parent with the higher income should cover the greater cost of supporting the child. The party must show evidence if they wish to challenge these guidelines. The court cited In re Marriage of Bussey, 142 Ill App. 3d 1034 (1986) where the court rejected the argument that the parent only needs to pay for basic needs of the child, when they are living far above the basic needs of their own. Department of Pub. Aid ex rel. Temple v. Van Kampen at …show more content…
The hearing was scheduled on June 24th 2013, but there was no judge available at the time. The Parents sat down and agreed that the father would have their son 3 weekends a month and one full week. The mother was to have the son the remainder of the time. In August 2015 the father filed another petition for emergency custody after the mothers husband filed an order of protection against her and she was staying in a hotel. The court dismissed and found the order was no longer needed since the mother went back to the