Childerson v. Hess
| Decision Date | 14 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 5-89-0202 |
| Citation | 144 Ill.Dec. 551,198 Ill.App.3d 395,555 N.E.2d 1070 |
| Parties | , 144 Ill.Dec. 551 June CHILDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Myron J. HESS, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
June Marie Childerson, Highland, pro se.
The plaintiff, June Childerson, appeals from the order of child support for her 16-year-old son, Douglas, alleging that the amount is inadequate. Defendant has not filed a brief in this court; however, the issue is such that this court can decide the case without the aid of defendant's brief. (See First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp. (1976), 63 Ill.2d 128, 133, 345 N.E.2d 493, 495.) Plaintiff alleges numerous issues on appeal; however, we need only discuss whether the court erred in the amount of the support awarded and whether the court erred in holding that social security payments for the benefit of the minor child satisfied defendant's obligation. Issues concerning payment of maternity expenses and reimbursement of public aid cannot be reviewed due to the inadequacy of the record.
On October 2, 1987, plaintiff filed a "Petition to Determine the Existence of the Father and Child Relationship," which alleged that defendant was the father of her son, Douglas, then age 15. On September 26, 1988, defendant acknowledged that he was the father of Douglas, and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of child support. It was stipulated that defendant, age 66, earned $12,449 as a union member of the operating engineers and had $6,755 income from social security. Through his union because of his age he was allowed to work up to 250 hours per year. Monday after trial was defendant's last work day, because he could not work 250 hours at age 67. Defendant then would be completely retired, and his income would be $981 per month; $412 from his union pension and $569 from social security.
Plaintiff receives $368 per month from social security for Douglas, now 16, on the basis that he is defendant's dependent. Plaintiff receives annually a net income of $11,891. In October 1988, petitioner was to receive a raise of 7% on the gross income.
Plaintiff testified that Douglas, who was born on August 23, 1972, is a junior in high school, making A's and B's. Plaintiff listed the following monthly expenses: rent, $400; payment on loan of $1,500 from Southern Illinois University credit union, $93; automobile expenses, $270; medical, life, and hospital insurance, $51; doctor and dental bills, $40; medicine, $22; union dues, $33.50; and food for herself and Douglas, $500. Although Douglas has a slight heart murmur, he can play tennis and basketball with his friends. Douglas plans to go to college, but she does not earn enough to set money aside for such purpose. Plaintiff's car will soon have to be replaced due to its age and poor condition. In order to meet everyday living expenses, she obtained a $2,800 loan from Mastercard.
Defendant testified that he had no additional sources of income other than work as an operating engineer, his pension, and social security.
The court calculated defendant's child support obligations as follows: $981 income from the pension and social security times 20% (see Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 40, par. 505) equals $196. The court noted that Douglas was receiving almost twice $196 from social security. The court ruled:
"There is no case law specifically on whether the Court should disregard the Social Security that is being received by the minor in setting child support, but I think the better rule of law, as I've discussed with counsel already, would be to give Mr. Hess credit for having these benefits for the young man, and my ruling is going to be that his child support obligation is satisfied by the Social Security payments that are being made."
The court continued the cause for the parties to determine on whose medical plan it would be the most advantageous to carry Douglas.
On October 24, 1988, the court entered a final order which ordered defendant to provide health and hospital insurance for Douglas.
Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing which was denied February 28, 1989. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, plaintiff's main issue is: whether payments to the minor child from defendant's social security and defendant's providing health insurance coverage on behalf of the minor satisfies defendant's support obligations. Plaintiff believes the court should have ordered payment of further support from the income and assets of defendant. She cites no cases in support of her position.
The amount of an award of child support is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and the award will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Such an abuse of discretion occurs only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. (In re Marriage of Dwan (1982), 108 Ill.App.3d 808, 812, 64 Ill.Dec. 340, 343, 439 N.E.2d 1005, 1008.) In determining child support, the courts, in proceedings under the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 40, par. 2501et seq.), are directed to the statutory guidelines set forth in the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 40, par. 101 et seq.). (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 40, par. 2514(a).) Section 505(a) of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 40, par. 505(a)) states, in relevant part:
Strictly following the guidelines, respondent should pay 20% of his net income, or $196 a month, the amount the trial court determined the statute required the court to assess. The statute allows the court to set an amount in excess of the guidelines. Ill.Rev.Stat.1987. ch. 40, par. 505(a)(2)(e).
In the case at bar, it was not established that defendant has any income other than his Social Security or pension. Defendant, age 67, is now completely retired. There is no indication that the retirement was an effort to avoid child support payments. On the contrary, defendant testified that he had worked a maximum of 250 hours per year but could no longer do so apparently due to union rules. This court cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding child support in accordance with the statutory guidelines.
We must also consider whether the court abused its discretion in finding that defendant's support obligation was satisfied by the social security payments on behalf of Douglas. We again find no abuse of the trial court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Verhines v. Hickey (In re Verhines)
...with reduced means, and that drawing upon retirement assets creates a hardship. See, e.g. , Childerson v. Hess , 198 Ill. App. 3d 395, 398, 144 Ill.Dec. 551, 555 N.E.2d 1070 (1990). This case is different. This case challenges the assumption that retirement results in an economic reversal a......
-
Marriage of Henry, In re
... ... Childerson v. Hess (1990), 198 Ill.App.3d 395, 399, 144 Ill.Dec. 551, 555 N.E.2d 1070; Schulze v. Jensen (1974) 191 Neb. 253, 257, 214 N.W.2d 591, 594 ... ...
-
Pontbriant v. Pontbriand
...Newman v. Newman, 451 N.W.2d 843 (Iowa 1990) (citing Potts v. Potts, 240 N.W.2d 680 (Iowa 1976)); Childerson v. Hess, 198 Ill.App.3d 395, 144 Ill.Dec. 551, 555 N.E.2d 1070 (1990); Poynter v. Poynter, 590 N.E.2d 150 (Ind.Ct.App.1992); Andler v. Andler, 217 Kan. 538, 538 P.2d 649 (1975); McCl......
-
Clark v. Clark
...[579,] 581 [(Ariz.Ct.App.1980)]; Cash[ v. Cash], 234 Ark. 603, 353 S.W.2d [348,] 350 [(Ark.1962)]; Childerson[ v. Hess], 144 Ill. Dec. 551, [554,] 555 N.E.2d [1070,] 1073 [(Ill.App.Ct.1990)]. See generally [Tori R.A.]Kricken,[Child Support and Social Security Dependent Benefits: A Comprehen......