People ex rel. Paredes v. Paredes

• Decision Date: 24 October 1986
• Docket Number: No. 84-0522,84-0522
• Parties: , 104 Ill.Dec. 10 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois ex rel. Cecilia Z. PAREDES and the State of Utah, Petitioners-Appellees, v. Fernando Jesus PAREDES, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 273

502 N.E.2d 273

150 Ill.App.3d 692, 104 Ill.Dec. 10

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois ex rel. Cecilia Z. PAREDES and the State of Utah, Petitioners-Appellees, v. Fernando Jesus PAREDES, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 84-0522.

Appellate Court of Illinois First District, Fifth Division.

Oct. 24, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1987.

[104 Ill.Dec. 11] Terrence Michael Jordan, Chicago, for respondent-appellant.

Richard M. Daley, State's Atty. of Cook County, Chicago, for petitioners-appellees; Evelyn B. Clay, Donald R. Havis, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel.

Justice LORENZ delivered the opinion of the court:

This action was brought to obtain reimbursement of public assistance paid by the State for the support of Respondent's children. On remand, the trial court entered judgment in favor of petitioners in the amount of $9,893. Respondent appeals from the order of the trial court denying his motion for judgment on the grounds that petitioners failed to prove the necessary elements of their case.

We affirm.

Co-Petitioner Cecilia Z. Paredes ("Cecilia") and respondent were at one time married and had several children. Upon divorcing, Cecilia was given custody of their children. Although gainfully employed after the break-up of the marriage, respondent failed to make child support payments for a period of approximately five years. Cecilia was, therefore, forced to seek public assistance and began to receive money on a regular basis from co-petitioner, the State of Utah ("the State"), for the support of her children.

The instant action, brought pursuant to Utah's Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act ("URESA"), was instituted by the State in order to obtain reimbursement of the monies paid for the support of the Paredes' children. Although originally filed in Utah, the case was later transmitted to the circuit court of Cook County where it later came to trial. Respondent's testimony at trial established: (1) that he and Cecilia were married, divorced, and had several children; (2) that he was the father of the children named in the petition; (3) that he was gainfully employed during the period of time in question; and (4) that he did not contribute money to help support the minor children. At the close of all the evidence, each of the parties moved for judgment. The trial court denied both motions, and ordered the case dismissed without prejudice. Respondent appealed and this appellate court reversed and remanded. (Paredes v. Paredes (1983), 118 Ill.App.3d 27, 73 Ill.Dec. 765, 454 N.E.2d 1014.) On remand, the trial court entered judgment in favor of petitioners in the amount of $9,893. It is from this order that respondent appeals.

OPINION

The sole issue presented to us for review is whether petitioners established a prima facie case thereby entitling them to have judgment entered in their favor.

Under Illinois Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 40, secs. 1201-1242), a party seeking reimbursement of support must set forth in his petition, among other things, allegations of paternity and the existence of a duty to support dependents. In the instant case, there is no indication that petitioners did not comply with such statutory requirements. In fact, we can legitimately infer that they initiated the subject petition pursuant to those terms because, prior to transmitting the cause to the circuit court of Cook County, the Utah court specifically made a certified finding that the pleadings in this action were in proper form. Furthermore, during his testimony at trial respondent admitted the material allegations that he was the father of the children named in the petition, and that although he was employed at all times during the period in question, he paid no support money to his wife or the State of Utah. The admissions, together with the inferences that attach to a court's certified findings, clearly reflect that a prima facie case was established. Respondent's claim that he is under no obligation to pay because the order of dissolution of marriage did not provide for child support is unfounded and irrelevant to these kinds of proceedings. Under both Illinois and common law, a father is liable for the support of his minor children, even though a prior divorce decree between the father and mother is silent on the subject. (Hartshorn v. Hartshorn (1959), 21 Ill.App.2d 91, 157 N.E.2d 563.) When the father fails to fulfill that duty of support and his children are being supported by another, the father has received a benefit related thereto, and the law implies a promise on his part to reimburse the supporter of the children. (Ball v. Haughton (1978), 60 Ill.App.3d 562, 17...