In re Marriage of Turk
2014 IL 116730, 12 N.E.3d 40 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 505 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act permits a court to order a custodial parent to pay child support to a noncustodial parent when circumstances, such as a significant income disparity and substantial parenting time for the noncustodial parent, make such an award necessary to serve the child's best interest.
Facts:
- Iris Turk and Steven Turk married in 1993 and had two sons.
- In 2005, a judgment dissolved their marriage, granting the parties joint custody with the children residing primarily with Iris.
- Over the subsequent years, the parties engaged in further litigation regarding custody of the children.
- In October 2010, a court granted temporary physical custody of both sons to Steven.
- In July 2012, an agreed order granted Steven the 'sole care, custody, control and education' of the boys.
- The 2012 order also established a parenting schedule that gave Iris extensive visitation, including nearly equal time with the younger son and equal time with both sons during holidays and vacations.
- At the time of the 2012 order, Steven earned approximately $150,000 per year, while Iris earned less than $10,000 per year.
Procedural Posture:
- Iris Turk filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Steven Turk in the circuit court of Cook County (trial court).
- In 2005, the court entered an agreed judgment dissolving the marriage, which included orders for support payments from Steven to Iris.
- After subsequent litigation, Steven was granted sole custody of the children in a July 2012 agreed order.
- Concurrently, the circuit court ordered Steven, the custodial parent, to pay Iris, the noncustodial parent, $600 per month in child support and to pay all of the children's uncovered medical expenses.
- Steven (appellant) appealed the circuit court's order to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's authority to order a custodial parent to pay support but reversed the specific $600 award as unsupported by the record, remanding for a new hearing.
- Steven (appellant) petitioned for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does section 505 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act permit a court to order a custodial parent to pay child support to a noncustodial parent?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Karmeier
Yes. A court may order a custodial parent to pay child support to a noncustodial parent because the plain language of the statute permits a court to 'order either or both parents' to pay support. The statute's primary goal is to serve the best interest of the child, which includes considering the financial resources and needs of both parents, not just their custodial status. A categorical rule exempting custodial parents could harm a child who spends substantial time with a much poorer noncustodial parent, forcing the child to 'live a dual life' with disparate socioeconomic standards. While some statutory subsections specifically mention 'noncustodial parents,' these provisions address enforcement challenges more common to that group and do not create a general exemption for custodial parents. This interpretation is consistent with prior Illinois case law and persuasive authority from other states that prioritize the child's welfare over rigid parental labels.
Concurring - Justice Theis
Yes. While the majority is correct that a custodial parent can be ordered to pay child support, its analysis is incomplete because it fails to outline the correct statutory procedure. The guidelines in section 505(a)(1) are the mandatory starting point and establish a rebuttable presumption that the noncustodial parent pays a percentage of their income to the custodial parent. The trial court erred by skipping this step and starting its calculation with the custodial parent's (Steven's) income. The proper procedure is to first calculate the noncustodial parent's (Iris's) presumptive support obligation and then deviate from that amount based on statutory factors, such as the vast income disparity and parenting schedule. This deviation can result in a 'negative' payment, meaning an award from the custodial to the noncustodial parent, but the analysis must begin with the noncustodial parent's obligation to respect the statutory framework.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes that in Illinois, custodial status is not an absolute shield against a child support obligation. The ruling prioritizes the child's best interest and the financial realities of the parents over formalistic labels, which is particularly significant in modern families with shared parenting and large income disparities. It aims to prevent a child's standard of living from drastically fluctuating between homes. The special concurrence provides critical procedural guidance, instructing lower courts to begin any support analysis with the statutory presumption that the noncustodial parent pays, and only then deviate, which will likely standardize how these cases are litigated and ensure the support obligation of both parents is considered.
