Pro Se Chicago's Weblog
Inability to pay child support, court fee, & court-appointed counselor or examiner
Filed under: Child Support, Circuit Court of Cook County, Civil Rights, Cook County, Divorce, Due Process, Family Court or Domestic Relations, fees for court appointed child representatives, fees for guardian ad litems, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Illinois Supreme Court, Outrageous Government Conduct, Right to Counsel, Sixth Amendment — Linda Shelton @ 11:17 am
A COURT MAY AWARD THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT CHILD SUPPORT IF THE CUSTODIAL PARENT IS MUCH WEALTHIER THAN NONCUSTODIAL PARENT. THIS IS SO THAT CHILD CAN LIVE SAME LIFESTYLE WITH BOTH PARENTS.
In re Marriage of Turk 2014 IL 116730
Appellate citation: 2013 IL App (1st) 122486.
JUSTICE KARMEIER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Chief Justice Garman and Justices Freeman, Kilbride, and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Theis specially concurred, with opinion, joined by Justice Thomas.
The parties to this Cook County child support dispute divorced in 2005 and have two sons, now ages 17 and 15. In 2012, the circuit court entered an agreed order establishing the father as custodial parent and setting up a visitation schedule for the mother under which she had regular visitation with the older boy once a week, for dinner on Wednesdays, and regular visitation with the younger boy, with weekly visits from Monday to Wednesday mornings, plus alternating weekends. This system gave her nearly equal time with him. At this time it was determined that the father earned approximately $150,000 per year and that the mother was earning less than $10,000. The father asked for termination of his obligation to pay support based on his custodial status, but the circuit court's order required him to pay $600 per month in child support and to fund medical expenses not covered by insurance. The father's claim that his designation as custodial parent meant that statute precluded requiring him to pay child support to a noncustodial parent was rejected by the circuit court, and the father appealed.
The appellate court, like the circuit court, rejected the father's claim of no obligation to pay child support, and it affirmed this aspect of the trial court's ruling. However, it remanded for an evidentiary hearing for reconsideration as to the support amount. It did not, however, interfere with the circuit court's ruling as to medical expenses.
In this decision, the Illinois Supreme Court said that the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act expressly confers on courts the option to order either or both parents to pay an amount that is reasonable and necessary for the support of the child, and, in its discretion, to order payment of various expenses determined to be reasonable, including health needs not covered by insurance. The supreme court explained that a parent who is technically noncustodial may have visitation rights which place the child in that parent's care for periods of time which involve commensurate cost. This can be problematic if the noncustodial parent has fewer resources to meet the substantial support costs of an extensive visitation schedule. This would not only be unfair, but would leave the poorer parent with insufficient resources to care for the child in a manner even minimally comparable to that of the wealthier parent. A child should not end up living commensurate with the wealthier custodial parent's income only half the time, when staying with the wealthier custodial parent. This could be detrimental to the child. Therefore, a trial court may order a custodial parent to pay child support where the circumstances and the best interests of the child warrant it.
While rejecting the custodial father's claims as to the meaning of the statute, the appellate court had remanded for an evidentiary hearing, with directions for the circuit court to clearly explain the basis for any support awarded. It was correct in this regard, but the supreme court held that, on remand, the circuit court should also revisit with specificity the issue of what portion of uninsured medical expenses the father should be required to pay.
The appellate court was, thus, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT BEFORE A PERSON CAN BE JAILED FOR NONPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT HE MUST BE GIVEN DUE PROCESS AND IN SOME CASES AN ATTORNEY – IF THE COURT DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT DUE PROCESS AS DEFINED IN THIS CASE
Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507, 180 L. Ed. 2d 452 (2011) [2011 BL 161240]
If incarcerated for failing to pay child support must have been given due process – notice, due process evidentiary hearing where it must be proven that defendant has ability to pay child support, and counsel. In a civil case, due process does not always involve appointment of counsel.
This is true only if there are procedural safeguards:
These include (1) notice to the defendant that his "ability to pay" is a critical issue in the contempt proceeding; (2) the use of a form (or the equivalent) to elicit relevant financial information from him; (3) an opportunity at the hearing for him to respond to statements and questions about his financial status; and (4) an express finding by the court that the defendant has the ability to pay,
and the opposing counsel (parent) is pro se, then the court is not required to appoint counsel.
Grandparent visitation rights in Illinois – a big hurdle
Filed under: Circuit Court of Cook County, Cook County, Divorce, Family Court or Domestic Relations, Probate Division, Visitation — Tags: child custody, deceased parents, divorce proceedings, family rights, grandparent visitation rights, out-of-wedlock birth, parent in jail, parent in prison, parental alienation syndrome, PAS — Linda Shelton @ 10:42 am
ILLINOIS LAW ON GRANDPARENTS' VISITATION RIGHTS by L. Shelton
This post assumes that the custodial parent has denied visitation for the non-custodial parent-related grandparents.
As explained in the following it is almost impossible to obtain visitation for grandparents by court order unless the grandparents can prove, by convincing evidence that without their visitation the child's mental, physical, or emotional health will be harmed. Therefore, the grandparents must obtain affidavits from psychologists, testimony from the child, or independent testimony from persons other than themselves that there is hard evidence that a child will be harmed without their interactions with the child. There is a presumption in the law that the parent's decision to bar visitation from the grandparent does not harm the child.
It is a sad statement that although the Illinois law supports in principle grandparents' visitation rights in cases where parents are not available, in reality the Illinois Supreme Court's interpretation of this law eviscerates it so that if a custodial parent refuses to allow the grandparents to visit with the child, the grandparents have no recourse.
Grandparents' rights are contained in several different statutes including:
Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA) 750 ILCS 5/101, et seq.,
Illinois Probate Act of 1975 (Probate Act), 755 ILCS 5/1-1, et seq., and
Illinois Adoption Act, (Adoption Act) 750 ILCS 5/0.01, et seq..
In common law, the superior right of the natural parent to raise and control their children was absolute barring special circumstances, such as when a parent died and his/her parents were trustee for their grandchild, or when the parent died and the grandparents had a long established close relationship with the child. In re Marriage of Spomer, 123 Ill.App.3d 31, 462 N.E.2d 724, 78 Ill.Dec. 605 (1984) [5th Dist].
Since 2005, although the Illinois Supreme Court (IL S Ct) has not addressed the constitutionality of the act yet, under the Probate Act and the IMDMA grandparents can move for visitation. Amendments to the IMDMA have been considered in Flynn v. Henkel, 227 Ill.2d 176, 880 N.E.2d 166, 316 Ill.Dec. 688 (2007).
In 2000 the legislature enacted law to allow grandparents visitation rights, IMDMA §§607(b)(1) and 607(b)(3). This was held unconstitutional in Wickham v. Byrne, 199 Ill.2d 309, 769 N.E.2d 1, 263 Ill.Dec. 799 (2002). They ruled the statute infringed on the natural parents' fundamental right "to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children without unwarranted state intrusion." Wickham 769 N.E.2d at 5. See also Schweigert v. Schweigert, 201 Ill.2d 42, 772 N.E.2d 229, 265 Ill.Dec. 191 (2002); and Lulay v. Lulay, 193 Ill.2d 455, 739 N.E.2d 521, 250 Ill.Dec. 758 (2000).
Statutes that infringe on such fundamental rights can only survive if narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Laws pertaining to mandatory immunizations, protection against child abuse, and child labor prohibitions will survive.
In 2005 the legislature narrowed the situations where grandparents can move for and obtain visitation to comport with the above principles. This statute permits grandparents to seek visitation with their grandchild if the child's parent or parents unreasonable deny visitation and at least one of five situations exists. 750 ILCS 5/607(a-5)(1):
1) One parent is incompetent, deceased, or imprisoned for more than one year.
2) The child's parents are divorced for at least three months, at least one of the parents does not object to the visitation, and the grandparent visitation would not interfere with the visitation enjoyed by the parent not related to the grandparent seeking visitation.
3) If a court other than a juvenile court or adoption court has terminated one parent's rights in the child and this parent is the child of the grandparent seeking visitation.
4) The child was born out of wedlock, the parents do not live together, and the petitioner is a maternal grandparent.
5) The child was born out of wedlock, a court has established paternity, the parents do not live together, and the petitioner is the paternal grandparent.
The statute prohibits petitions for grandparents visitation if the parental rights have been terminated in an adoption proceeding, 750 ILCS 5/607(a-5)(2).
The statute places the burden of proof on the grandparent and the Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted this so onerously that it is now virtually impossible for grandparents to obtain visitation if the custodial parent does not approve of it.
"[T]here is a rebuttal presumption that a fit parent's actions and decisions regarding grandparent . . . visitation are not harmful to the child's mental, physical, or emotional health." 750 ILCS 5/607(a-5)(3) To prevail on a petition for visitation, the grandparents must prove that the parent's actions and decisions in denying visitation harm the child's mental, physical, or emotional health. Id. In determining whether this rebuttable presumption is overcome, the trial court is directed to consider numerous factors. These factors are:
1) the child's preference,
2) the mental and physical health of the child and the grandparents,
3) the duration and nature of the child's relationship with the grandparents,
4) the good faith of the grandparents in seeking visitation and of the person denying visitation,
5) the amount of visitation time requested and
6) whether this visitation would adversely impact the child's other activities,
7) whether the child lived with the grandparents for at least six consecutive months with or without the current custodial parent,
8) whether the grandparents have had frequent contact with the child for at least 12 consecutive months,, and
9) any other facts that demonstrate that severing the relationship between the grandparents and the child will harm the child's mental, physical, or emotional health.
750 ILCS 5/607(a-5)(4).
If the grandparents prevail, the court still has great flexibility in shaping the order. The court may refuse to grant overnight visitation or even possessory visitation. The court need only provide grandparents with reasonable access to the child. 750 ILCS 5/607(a-5)(5).
Modifications of these grandparents' visitation orders may be requested every two years, similar to this restriction on custody orders, unless the court is provided affidavits alleging facts that demonstrate "the child's environment may endanger seriously the child's mental, physical, or emotional health." 750 ILCS 5/607(a-5)(1). It must be proved by clear and convincing evidence that circumstances have changed since entry of previous visitation orders, which are necessary to protect the child's mental, physical, or emotional health. Changes to the grandparent's circumstances are irrelevant. The changes must relate to the child and the custodian. (750 ILCS 5/607(a-7)(2). The petition to modify visitation may be premised only on factual allegations that were nonexistent or unknown to the court when the previous visitation order was entered. (Id) "Attorneys' fees and costs shall be assessed against a party seeking modification of the visitation order if the court finds that the modification action is vexatious and constitutes harassment.," 750 ILCS 5/607(a-7)(3).
Several amendments took effect in 2007:
1) Grandparent visitation statutes do not apply to children less than one year old. 750 ILCS 5/607(a-3)
2) The Petition must be filed in the county in which the child resides. 750 ILCS 5/607(a-3)
3) The grandparent may petition for visitation during a pending divorce proceeding or any other proceeding involving custody of a child. 750 ILCS 5/607(a-3)
4) The grandparent may petition for visitation if the parent has been missing for three months. 750 ILCS 5/607(a-5)(1)(A-5) [missing means the person cannot be located and the fact they are missing has been reported to a law enforcement agency.] (Id.)
5) The grandparent may also petition for visitation if the parent has been incarcerated during the three month period prior to the filing of the petition. 750 ILCS 5/607(a-5)(1)(A-15).
6) The grandparent may petition for visitation if the child has been adopted by a relative or a stepparent [which changes the law barring visitation after adoption.].
The IL S Ct has ruled in Flynn v. Henkel, 227 Ill.2d 176, 880 N.E.2d 166, 316 Ill.Dec. 688 (2007), concerning grandparent visitation rights under these statutes. The court reversed the lower court and Appellate Court decisions granting visitation, stating that the grandparents, in this case where the child was born out of wedlock, did not meet their burden of proof to show that it is harmful to the child's mental, physical, or emotional health if visitation with the paternal grandparents was denied. The constitutionality of the new grandparent visitation statute has not been addressed.
Neither denial of an opportunity for grandparent visitation, as the trial court found, nor a child "never knowing a grandparent who loved him and who did not undermine the child's relationship with his mother," as the appellate court held, is "harm" that will rebut the presumption stated in section 607(a-5)(3) that a fit parent's denial of a grandparent's visitation is not harmful to the child's mental, physical, or emotional health. 880 N.E.2d at 171.
Under the probate act, a grandparent may petition for visitation if:
1) both parents are deceased, and
2) the grandparent is the parent of the child's legal parent. [thus if the adoptive parents both die, the grandparents may petition for visitation only if they are parents of the adoptive parents.]
755 ILCS 5/11-7.1(a). The burden of proof to prove these things by the preponderance of the evidence is on the petitioner. Again,, if adopted by a close relative, then the grandparents may petition for visitation. Close relatives include aunts, uncles, first cousins, and brothers and sisters of the child.
Family Law – U.S. Consumer Protection Act limits amount of garnishment for child support
Filed under: Child Support, Cook County, Divorce, Due Process, Equal Protection Under the Law, Family Court or Domestic Relations, fees for court appointed child representatives, fees for guardian ad litems — Tags: child support, divorce, domestic relations, Illinois, wage garnishment — Linda Shelton @ 8:21 am
The consumer protection act REQUIRES that no more than 65 % of you income go towards paying back child support (this 65% includes payment of taxes first, then child support, then any other garnishment of wages – total garnishment can be no more than 65 % if in arrears and 60 % of wages if not in arrears for child support).
From "Big Divorce Book" I Compiled:
11. "Title III, Consumer Protection Act" Summary of authority and purpose of 15 USC § 1671 et seq. and 29 CFR Part 870 regarding maximum payments that may Be withheld under federal law from Obligor ……………………………………………. 50-51
12. 15 USC § 1671 et seq. Federal Wage Garnishment Law (Title III of the Consumer Protection Act) & corresponding 29 CFR Part 870 ……………………………………. 51-56
Mandates that when child support is an issue that federal and State taxes have priority over child support or other debts. Provides that child support has priority over other debts except for taxes. Provides that if the Obligor is not living with and supporting a spouse or child that no more than a total of 60% of net wages may be withheld from a paycheck and no more than 65% of net wages may be withheld from a paycheck if Obligor is more than 12 weeks in arrears ……………………………….. 52-54
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 1671. = 15 U.S.C. § 1671 Congressional findings and declaration of purpose
(a) Disadvantages of garnishment The Congress finds:
(1) The unrestricted garnishment of compensation due for personal services encourages the making of predatory extensions of credit. Such extensions of credit divert money into excessive credit payments and thereby hinder the production and flow of goods in interstate commerce.
(2) The application of garnishment as a creditors' remedy frequently results in loss of employment by the debtor, and the resulting disruption of employment, production, and consumption constitutes a substantial burden on interstate commerce.
(3) The great disparities among the laws of the several States relating to garnishment have, in effect, destroyed the uniformity of the bankruptcy laws and frustrated the purposes thereof in many areas of the country.
(b) Necessity for regulation On the basis of the findings stated in subsection (a) of this section, the Congress determines that the provisions of this subchapter are necessary and proper for the purpose of carrying into execution the powers of the Congress to regulate commerce and to establish uniform bankruptcy laws.
15 U.S.C. § 1672. Definitions
For the purposes of this subchapter:
(a) The term "earnings" means compensation paid or payable for personal services, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or otherwise, and includes periodic payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program.
(b) The term "disposable earnings" means that part of the earnings of any individual remaining after the deduction from those earnings of any amounts required by law to be withheld.
(c) The term "garnishment" means any legal or equitable procedure through which the earnings of any individual are required to be withheld for payment of any debt.
15 U.S.C. § 1673. Restriction on garnishment
(a) Maximum allowable garnishment Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and in section 1675 of this title, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed
(1) 25 per centum of his disposable earnings for that week, or
(2) the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 206 (a)(1) of title 29 in effect at the time the earnings are payable,
whichever is less. In the case of earnings for any pay period other than a week, the Secretary of Labor shall by regulation prescribe a multiple of the Federal minimum hourly wage equivalent in effect to that set forth in paragraph (2).
(b) Exceptions (1) The restrictions of subsection (a) of this section do not apply in the case of (A) any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or in accordance with an administrative procedure, which is established by State law, which affords substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review.
(B) any order of any court of the United States having jurisdiction over cases under chapter 13 of title 11.
(C) any debt due for any State or Federal tax.
(2) The maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment to enforce any order for the support of any person shall not exceed— (A) where such individual is supporting his spouse or dependent child (other than a spouse or child with respect to whose support such order is used), 50 per centum of such individual's disposable earnings for that week; and
(B) where such individual is not supporting such a spouse or dependent child described in clause (A), 60 per centum of such individual's disposable earnings for that week;
except that, with respect to the disposable earnings of any individual for any workweek, the 50 per centum specified in clause (A) shall be deemed to be 55 per centum and the 60 per centum specified in clause (B) shall be deemed to be 65 per centum, if and to the extent that such earnings are subject to garnishment to enforce a support order with respect to a period which is prior to the twelve-week period which ends with the beginning of such workweek.
(c) Execution or enforcement of garnishment order or process prohibited No court of the United States or any State, and no State (or officer or agency thereof), may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section.
15 U.S.C. § 1674. Restriction on discharge from employment by reason of garnishment
(a) Termination of employment No employer may discharge any employee by reason of the fact that his earnings have been subjected to garnishment for any one indebtedness.
(b) Penalties Whoever willfully violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
15 U.S.C. § 1676. Enforcement by Secretary of Labor
(If someone violates this law you should complain to the U.S. Dept of Labor)
The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, shall enforce the provisions of this subchapter.
29 C.F.R. 870 et seq.
Title 29: Labor
PART 870—RESTRICTION ON GARNISHMENT Section Contents
Subpart A—General
29 U.S.C. § 870.1 Purpose and scope. § 870.2 Amendments to this part. Subpart B—Determinations and Interpretations
29 U.S.C. § 870.10 Maximum part of aggregate disposable earnings subject to garnishment under section 303(a). § 870.11 Exceptions to the restrictions provided by section 303(a) of the CCPA and priorities among garnishments.
Subpart A—General § 870.1 Purpose and scope. (a) This part sets forth the procedures and any policies, determinations, and interpretations of general application whereby the Secretary of Labor carries out his duties under section 303 of the CCPA dealing with restrictions on garnishment of earnings, and section 305 permitting exemptions for State-regulated garnishments in certain situations. While the Secretary's duties under section 303 include insuring that certain amounts of earnings are protected, such duties do not include establishing priorities among multiple garnishments, as such priorities are determined by other Federal statutes or by State law.
(b) Functions of the Secretary under the CCPA to be performed as provided in this part are assigned to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division (hereinafter referred to as the Administrator), who, under the general direction and control of the Assistant Secretary, Wage and Labor Standards Administration, shall be empowered to take final and binding actions in administering the provisions of this part. The Administrator is empowered to subdelegate any of his duties under this part. Any legal advice and assistance required for administration of this part shall be provided by the Solicitor of Labor.
29 U.S.C. § 870.2 Amendments to this part. The Administrator may, at any time upon his own motion or upon written request of any interested person setting forth reasonable grounds therefor, amend any rules in this part.
Subpart B—Determinations and Interpretations § 870.10 Maximum part of aggregate disposable earnings subject to garnishment under section 303(a). (a) Statutory provision. Section 303 (a) of the CCPA provides that, with some exceptions,
the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed
(2) the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, in effect at the time the earnings are payable.
(b) Weekly pay period. The statutory exemption formula applies directly to the aggregate disposable earnings paid or payable for a pay period of 1 workweek, or a lesser period. Its intent is to protect from garnishment and save to an individual earner the specified amount of compensation for his personal services rendered in the workweek, or a lesser period. Thus:
(1) The amount of an individual's disposable earnings for a workweek or lesser period which may not be garnished is 30 times the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage. If an individual's disposable earnings for such a period are equal to or less than 30 times the minimum wage, the individual's earnings may not be garnished in any amount. (When the minimum wage increases, the proportionate amount of earnings which may not be garnished also increases.) On April 1, 1991, the minimum wage increased to $4.25. Accordingly, the amount of disposable weekly earnings which may not be garnished is $127.50 effective April 1, 1991. (For the period April 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991, the amount that may not be garnished is $114 (30×$3.80).)
(2) For earnings payable on or after April 1, 1991, if an individual's disposable earnings for a workweek or lesser period are more than $127.50, but less than $170.00, only the amount above $127.50 is subject to garnishment. (For earnings payable during the period April 1, 1990, through March 31, 1991, when the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage was $3.80, this range computes to more than $114.00, but less than $152.00.)
(3) For earnings payable on or after April 1, 1991, if an individual's disposable earnings for a workweek or lesser period are $170.00 or more, 25 percent of his/her disposable earnings is subject to garnishment. (The weekly figure was $152.00 (40×$3.80) for the period April 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991.)
(c) Pay for a period longer than 1 week. In the case of disposable earnings which compensate for personal services rendered in a pay period longer than 1 workweek, the weekly statutory exemption formula must be transformed to a formula applicable to such earnings providing equivalent restrictions on wage garnishment.
(1) The 25 percent part of the formula would apply to the aggregate disposable earnings for all the workweeks or fractions thereof compensated by the pay for such pay period.
(2) The following formula should be used to calculate the dollar amount of disposable earnings which would not be subject to garnishment: The number of workweeks, or fractions thereof, should be multiplied times the applicable Federal minimum wage and that amount should be multiplied by 30. For example, for the period April 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991 when the Federal minimum wage was $3.80 per hour, the formula should be calculated based on a minimum wage of $3.80 ($3.80 multiplied by 30 equals $114; $114 multiplied by the number of workweeks (or fractions thereof) equals the amount that cannot be garnished). As of April 1, 1991, the $4.25 Federal minimum wage replaces $3.80 in the formula (and the amount which cannot be garnished would then be $127.50 multiplied by the number of workweeks (or fractions thereof)). For purposes of this formula, a calendar month is considered to consist of 41/3workweeks. Thus, during the period April 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991 when the Federal minimum hourly wage was $3.80 an hour, the amount of disposable earnings for a 2-week period is $228.00 (2×30×$3.80); for a monthly period, $494.00 (41/3×30×$3.80). Effective April 1, 1991, such amounts increased as follows: for a two-week period, $255.00 (2×30×$4.25); for a monthly period, $552.50 (41/3×30×$4.25). The amount of disposable earnings for any other pay period longer than 1 week shall be computed in a manner consistent with section 303(a) of the act and with this paragraph.
(3) Absent any changes to the rate set forth in section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, disposable earnings for individuals paid weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, and monthly may not be garnished unless they are in excess of the following amounts:
Date Minimum amount Weekly amount Biweekly amount Semi-monthly amount Monthly rate Jan. 1, 1981 $3.35 $100.50 $201.00 $217.75 $435.50 Apr. 1, 1990 3.80 114.00 228.00 247.00 494.00 Apr. 1, 1991 4.25 127.50 255.00 276.25 552.50
(4) Absent any changes to the rate set forth in section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, if the disposable earnings are less than the following figures, only the difference between the appropriate figures set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of this section and the individual's disposable earnings may be garnished.
For example, in April of 1990, if an individual's disposable earnings for a biweekly pay period are $274.00, the difference between $228.00 and $274.00 (i.e., $46.00) may be garnished.
(5) If disposable earnings are in excess of the figures stated in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, 25% of the disposable earnings may be garnished.
(d) Date wages paid or payable controlling. The date that disposable earnings are paid or payable, and not the date the Court issues the garnishment order, is controlling in determining the amount of disposable earnings that may be garnished. Thus, a garnishment order in November 1990, providing for withholding from wages over a period of time, based on exemptions computed at the $3.80 per hour minimum wage then in effect, would be modified by operation of the change in the law so that wages paid after April 1, 1991, are subject to garnishment to the extent described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section on the basis of a minimum rate of $4.25 per hour. This principle is applicable at the time of the enactment of any further increase in the minimum wage.
29 U.S.C. § 870.11 Exceptions to the restrictions provided by section 303(a) of the CCPA and priorities among garnishments. top (a)(1) Section 303(b) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act provides that the restrictions in section 303(a) do not apply to:
(i) Any debt due for any State or Federal tax, or
(ii) Any order of any court of bankruptcy under Chapter XIII of the Bankruptcy Act.
(2) Accordingly the Consumer Credit Protection Act does not restrict in any way the amount which may be withheld for State or Federal taxes or in Chapter XIII Bankruptcy Act proceedings.
(b)(1) Section 303(b) provides the following restrictions on the amount that may be withheld for the support of any person (e.g. alimony or child support):
(A) Where such individual is supporting his spouse or dependent child (other than a spouse or child with respect to whose support such order is issued), 50 per centum of such individual's disposable earnings for that week; and
(B) Where such individual is not supporting such a spouse or dependent child described in clause (A), 60 per centum of such individual's disposable earnings for that week; except that, with respect to the disposable earnings of any individual for any workweek, the 50 per centum specified in clause (A) shall be deemed to be 55 per centum and the 60 per centum specified in clause (B) shall be deemed to be 65 per centum, if and to the extent that such earnings are subject to garnishment to enforce a support order with respect to a period which is prior to the twelve week period which ends with the beginning of such workweek.
(2) Compliance with the provisions of section 303(a) and (b) may offer problems when there is more than one garnishment. In that event the priority is determined by State law or other Federal laws as the CCPA contains no provisions controlling the priorities of garnishments. However, in no event may the amount of any individual's disposable earnings which may be garnished exceed the percentages specified in section 303. To illustrate:
(i) If 45% of an individual's disposable earnings were garnished for taxes, and this garnishment has priority, the Consumer Credit Protection Act permits garnishment for the support of any person of only the difference between 45% and the applicable percentage (50 to 65%) in the above quoted section 303(b).
(ii) If 70% of an individual's disposable earnings were garnished for taxes and/or a Title XIII Bankruptcy debt, and these garnishments have priority, the Consumer Credit Protection Act does not permit garnishment either for the support of any person or for other debts.
(iii) If 25% of an individual's disposable earnings were withheld pursuant to an ordinary garnishment which is subject to the restrictions of section 303(a), and the garnishment has priority in accordance with State law, the Consumer Credit Protection Act permits the additional garnishment for the support of any person of only the difference between 25% and the applicable percentage (50–65%) in the above quoted section 303(b).
(iv) If 25% or more of an individual's disposable earnings were withheld pursuant to a garnishment for support, and the support garnishment has priority in accordance with State law, the Consumer Credit Protection Act does not permit the withholding of any additional amounts pursuant to an ordinary garnishment which is subject to the restrictions of section 303(a).
IISBA members retaliate against activists in family court fighting against extortion of family assets by court-appointed attorneys
Filed under: ARDC, Attorney Misconduct, Cook County, Divorce, Family Court or Domestic Relations, fees for court appointed child representatives, fees for guardian ad litems, Illinois Supreme Court, Injustice, ISBA, Uncategorized — Tags: ARDC, court abuse of families, court ordered extortion of families, david wessel, exorbitant court fees, Illinois HB5544, ISBA, Jackie Birnbaum, Ralla Klepak, Regina Scannichio — Linda Shelton @ 8:48 pm
Read complaint here.
On February 29, 2012 a group of moms and dads who were victims of court ordered extortion of their families appeared to testify before the Illinois House Judiciary I Committee in support of HB 5544, which would set a limit on fees that child representatives and guardian ad litems can bill families for services in divorce cases, when they are court-appointed to represent the minor children.
These moms and dads made compelling testimony that proved that judges were rubber stamping orders to pay these lawyers exorbitant amounts, from $300 to $1200 per hour, amounting to up to around $100,000 per divorce case. These fees which are often one to two times an average family's yearly income, not including the fees the parents pay each of their own attorneys, cause the corrupt family court judges to ignore the law, 750 ILCS 5-506, that requires them to approve only "reasonable and necessary" fees, and order the families to use the children's' college funds to pay the court-appointed attorneys as well as to sell their homes – often making them homeless or end up living in trailer homes or with friends and relatives, to pay these fees.
Surely, this was not the intent of the legislature when they enacted these statutes to look after the "best interest of the children" – notably a term that the Nazis used 60 years ago to take Aryan looking from their parents and place them with good German couples in order to ensure a pure race!
For details of this scheme to rape the estates of families in divorce court to enrich lawyers see the complaint filed with the ARDC, Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Kilbride, with the attached copies of the slide show that these activists gave to the Illinois House Judiciary I Committee on February 29, 2012 to document this atrocious, immoral, and illegal scheme supported by the ISBA, whose member testified that they NEED these exorbitant fees and the families should have a penalty that impoverishes them for arguing with each other!
Tell your representatives support HB 2833 – end excessive fees to child reps & GALs in divorce
Filed under: Child Support, Circuit Court of Cook County, Divorce, Due Process, Family Court or Domestic Relations, fees for court appointed child representatives, fees for guardian ad litems, Injustice — Tags: child representative fees, court appointed lawyer fees, GAL fees, Illinois cottage industry — Linda Shelton @ 12:25 pm
To: All Members of General Assembly
From: Concerned Citizens On behalf of families whose assets were depleted by the "cottage industry" and whose assets are no longer available for the care, up-keep, and education of their children – Michael Gerhardt, Esq., Milijana Vlastelica, Karyn Mehringer, MA., LCPC, Claudia Shabo, Miriam Shabo, David Bambic, Marie Szczypta and other Community Activists
Dear Legislators,
PLEASE REVIEW THE LANGUAGE OF HB 2833 HA#1 AND VOTE YES TO END THE "COTTAGE INDUSTRY" IN THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION PROBLEM:
Representation of Child statute, 750 ILCS 5/506 provides no fee cap that the private attorneys, in a capacity of a court-appointed Attorney for Child (AFC), Guardian ad Litem (GAL), Child Representative (CR), may bill the parties for representing their minor children in divorce/custody cases.
• On April 10, 2010, The Illinois Family Law Study Committee (Formed by the Illinois House of Representatives to investigate and recommend changes to laws) identified and referred to the present domestic relations system as a "cottage industry."
• In Lawpulse, IBJ, July 07 publication, one of the attorneys stated, "There are attorneys making half a million dollars a year as child reps – and not working terribly hard for it".
• Currently, the children's attorneys, GALs/CRs/AFCs are allowed to bill a rate as high as $400.00/hour, especially in Chicago and its wide metropolitan area.
• Some GALs/CRs/AFCs are not submitting a detailed invoice for each 90-day period as required by the statute, without any consequences.
• Some courts are awarding lump sum fees to appointed GALs/CRs/AFCs without ever receiving properly itemized billing.
• Some GALs/CRs/AFCs are billing the parents a professional attorney rate for the preparation and presentation of their invoices. SOLUTION: House Bill 2833, HA #1 provides that:
• A court-appointed GAL/CR/AFC may be paid at a reasonable rate not to exceed $150.00/hour which is comparable to what a court-appointed attorney used to make in death penalty cases.
• A court-appointed GAL's/CR's/AFC's failure to submit a detailed invoice for each 90-day period precludes the collection of fees for services rendered in that period.
• A court-appointed GAL/CR/AFC may not bill the parties any fees for the preparation and presentation of an invoice.
• A court may not award lump sum fees to a court-appointed GAL/CR/AFC.
• Deletes provision which states that unless otherwise ordered by the court at the time that the fees and costs are approved, all fees and costs payable to an appointed attorney, GAL/CR/AFC are by implication deemed to be in the nature of support of the child. STATUS: All 11 members of the Judiciary I – Civil Law Committee recommended that HB 2833, HA #1 be adopted with amendments to be added. DISCUSSION: Fees capped at $150/hour instead of $300-$400 and more:
• Presently, there is no cap on as to what the private attorneys in a capacity of court-appointed GAL/CR/AFC may charge the parties in divorce/custody cases for advocating the minor children's best interests. GAL/CR/AFC often bill between $300 -$400/hour; and many times, no one knows what their billing rates are as judges are not requiring detailed invoices and rubberstamping their fees without question. This is one of the reasons this area is labeled a "cottage industry" and is open to serious fee abuse.
• Pursuant to the Illinois Supreme Court Rule 906, the Special Committee stated, "Ideally, the State would provide sufficient funding to reimburse the private attorneys who are appointed by the court. In the absence of such funding, the individual judicial circuits will need to be innovative in meeting the financial requirements of the plans. In addition to requiring the parties to pay for the appointed lawyer's services, the local rules could provide for the targeting of court filing fees. Voluntary pro bono service is also strongly encouraged." In practice, some judicial circuits became "innovative" by allowing the appointed attorneys to bill the parents excessive fees in excess of $100,000.00. Voluntary pro bono service is virtually non-existent.
• No trial court should ever be in a position to generate an extremely lucrative business to the private attorneys without any recourse available to the parties.
• There is no reason, rationale, or basis as to why the court-appointed attorneys, GALs/CRs/AFCs in custody cases, are allowed to bill $400/hour when paid for by the parents, whereas all other court-appointed attorneys make only a fraction of that.
• In Death Penalty cases, an appointed attorney fees did not exceed $125/hour (adjusted for COLA) per 725 ILCS 124-10.
• In non-death penalty cases, attorney fees are based on 725 ILCS 5/113-3, at $40/hour for court time and $30/hour for non-court time.
• Even the most senior Public Defenders are paid no more than $40/hour; and they are dealing with loss of freedom – jail time.
• Therefore, the proposed rate of $150/hour is more than equitable.
• Being an attorney as a GAL/CR/AFC has lower costs associated than being any other attorney.
• No "marketing costs" as one does not have to look for a case; but is assigned the case. (Assignment, other than randomly, opens this area for much abuse and favoritism.)
• One does not have to worry about collection of fees as the judge will order the fees from the marital estate, and often with the threat of contempt. No other attorneys enjoy this luxury. And in a "cottage industry" this is particularly disturbing. Invoices need to be detailed and submitted:
• This area has already been identified as a "cottage industry." That includes: fee abuses, work not performed, no accountability, etc.
• How does one determine an amount to bill if there is no record of work performed? There needs to be repercussions for failure to submit a bill, because failure to submit a bill indicates that there is something amiss.
• Regularly submitting bills will encourage settlement, and is a method to control costs of litigation.
• Every profession, including lawyers, regularly submits bills. There should be no huge surprise at the very end. Hiding costs until late in the process is unprofessional and borders on extortion. The federal courts have already held that the fees and costs payable to GAL/CR/AFC are not a domestic support obligation of the debtor:
• In Joel Levin v. Carlo M. Greco, No. 08-A-00251, In the United States Bankruptcy Court For the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, the Court held that the debt owed to a "child representative" in an Illinois divorce case is not a "domestic relations support obligation" under 101 (14A) of the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11, U.S.C), a status that would make the debt nondischargeable under 523 (a) (5) of the Code.
Illinois Supreme Court motion for supervisory order to force Illinois HFS Child Support Division to hear requests to change child support
Filed under: Child Support, Circuit Court of Cook County, Divorce, Due Process, Family Court or Domestic Relations, Illinois Supreme Court, Judicial Corruption — Tags: 305 ILCS 5/10, administrative law court, change in child support, child support, child support division, david wessel, illinois department of heatlhcare and family services, Illinois HFS, judge haracz, judy hamos, pam lowery, social security title IV-D — Linda Shelton @ 1:40 am
Federal and State law, Social Security Title IV-D and 305 ILCS 5/10, require the administrative law courts in the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (HFS) hear petitions to change child support by a non-custodial parent or custodial parent. For a summary of these laws see this link here.
The HFS Child Support Division and their Administrative Law courts have been illegally refusing to hear any non-custodial parent's request for change in child support for 20 years. They do not even have forms for the non-custodial parent to apply for a hearing before the Administrative Court Law Judge or to request a change in child support! The above codes and statutes require that this be allowed and done. Therefore, their refusal to do their job is being challenged in the courts – see link below.
HFS-CSD directed by Pam Lowery has been refusing to do their job. Non-custodial parents have been illegally forced to pay as much as 110 % of their income for child support and have even been illegally jailed. Even if in arrears a non-custodial parent may not be ordered to pay more than 65 % of his/her income to child support after garnishment for taxes per the federal Consumer Protection Act.
Trial courts lose jurisdiction to hear post-trial requests for change in child support according to these laws and regain it only after the HFS-CSD administrative law court investigates the financial circumstances (with subpoenas to the parents) and holds a hearing before the administrative law judge in their division with the parents present and then makes a recommendation that goes to the Trial Judge. Then the trial judge can rubber-stamp it if the parents agree or hold a trial to determine the appropriate amount of child support if the parents disagree.
See a 383 Motion for Supervisory Order to the Illinois Supreme Court , which purpose is to ask the Court to ORDER the HFS-CSD administrative law courts to do their statutory duty and to order the family court judges to stop holding post-trial hearings on child support until AFTER they receive the recommendations from the HFS-CSD administrative law courts. here
Motion for Supervisory Order – Illinois Supreme Court
Filed under: Cook County, Divorce, Family Court or Domestic Relations, Illinois Supreme Court, Judicial Corruption, Pro Se Counsel, Uncategorized — Tags: Illinois Supreme Court, motion for supvisory order — Linda Shelton @ 11:42 pm
The reason to file a motion for a supervisory order with the Illinois Supreme Court (IL S Ct) is if a person is unable to file direct appeal on the issue. For example in a divorce case where the judge endlessly keeps an issue "in reserve" for more than a year, and therefore, there is no final appealable order because all issues are not dealt with, then it is appropriate to file a motion for supervisory order to the IL S Ct in order to ask for an order to force the trial judge to make a decision on the case.
Also see info from the Illinois Pro Bono organization: here
The following is an example of a motion for supervisory order. The sample IL S Ct motion for supervisory order is here.
To file it, if the court is in session you send the original and 9 copies to the IL S Ct in Springfield at their office. If they are not in session and you are in Chicago, you file an original and five copies in the Chicago office of the IL S Ct and then send one copy to each of the four justices outside of Chicago – their local offices. Recently (2013) the IL S Ct made rules on how to E-file. See their web site for updated information.
Included must be notice of service to the judge (who is the respondent) and to the other parties, an order with a place for the judges to circle either "denied" or "granted" and a place to sign it., a verified statement that you are complying with the 20 page limit to the pleading, a cover for the appendix, an affidavit that the documents in the appendix are true and accurate copies, a table of contents with page numbers for the appendix, an affidavit if you are pro se (verified statement if you are an attorney) that you have served notice and the motion to the parties and judges, and a check for $25 dollars. See IL S Ct rules 383,341-343.
The supporting record must be authenticated by the trial court clerk or verified by affidavit by attorney or pro se counsel as required in IL S Ct rule
How to apply for change in child support payments
Filed under: Circuit Court of Cook County, Cook County, Divorce, Family Court or Domestic Relations, Uncategorized — Tags: change child support, child custody, child support, child support services unit, divorce, Illinois, non-custodial parent, state disbursement unit — Linda Shelton @ 10:48 pm
Please be aware that the courts in Illinois, especially Cook County do NOT follow the law and no government agency, federal or state, has responded to our complaints. Please help by complaining to your state and federal senators and members of the house that an investigation and remedy are needed. Support organizations that are working for justice in divorce courts. This is theoretically how it works, but individual judges in divorce cases simply seem to make up their own rules as they go along.
In Illinois, if your circumstances significantly change and you seek a change in your amount of child support as a non-custodial parent, then the laws state that you should apply to the Illinois Department of Public Aid Child Support Enforcement Unit's Administrative Law Court for investigation, hearing, and determination of the amount of child support (which includes providing health insurance for the child).
The IDPA, CSEU also manages the State Disbursement Unit which collects and disburses child support payments through guarnishment of wages.
If you are not making payments through the SDU, then you can still apply to be heard by the Adm Law Court by filling out this application – click here.
The trial court does not have the jurisdiction to hear motions for enforcement of child support orders or motions for change in child support, until AFTER the Adm Law Court makes a recommendation. Then the trial court will rubber stamp the recommendation if the parents agree or will hold hearings and make decisions if the parents disagree on the payments.
The Domestic Relations Courts in Cook County have been for two decades ILLEGALLY hearing these motions instead of waiting for a recommendation by the Adm Law courts! ALL SHOULD PROTEST BY APPLYING TO THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SERVICES DIVISION WITH THIS APPLICATION AND BY MAKING OBJECTIONS IN THE TRIAL COURTS.
WE ALSO SUGGEST YOU COPY THIS COMPENDIUM OF THE RELATIVE FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS THAT IS SUMMARIZED I THE TABLE OF CONTENTS IN OUR BIG DIVORCE BOOK HERE AND PRESENT IT TO YOUR TRIAL COURT AS A "MEMORANDUM OF LAW".
Make sure to read this booklet by the federal government that is a comprehensive guide to all issues in child support here.
The Big Divorce Book – little known Illinois and Federal Divorce laws
Filed under: Circuit Court of Cook County, Divorce, Family Court or Domestic Relations, Pro Se Counsel, Self Representation — Tags: child custody, child support, child support laws, divorce, divorce laws, domestic relations, federal divorce laws, health care for children in divorce, petition for change in child support, withholding wages for child support — Linda Shelton @ 9:03 pm
FOR COMPLETE COPY WITH SUMMARY OF THE LAWS PERTAINING TO CHILD SUPPORT FOR ILLINOIS CONTACT LINDA SHELTON AT picepil@aol.com – IT WILL BE E-MAILED TO YOU FOR A CONTRIBUTION TO COVER THE COST OF COPYING, PRODUCING, AND MAILING THIS 56 PAGE DOCUMENT – there are no guarantees as to completeness or accuracy
DIVORCE BIG BOOK
ILLINOIS AND FEDERAL STATUTES
REGARDING CHILD SUPPORT
AN EDUCATIONAL PUBLICATION BY
STOP ILLINOIS CORRUPTION
(A PUBLIC SERVICE CLUB)
DAVID BAMBIC and DR. LINDA SHELTON
NOTE: Interpretation of Law in Table of Contents has been done by paralegals and lay persons and is not guaranteed as to its accuracy – Please verify any interpretation of law by a licensed attorney – This is the opinion and belief of editors only and not meant to be a definitive interpretation of the law or legal advice – Use this interpretation at your own risk
NOTE: These laws are applicable the moment an obligee (non-custodial parent) is placed into the State Disbursement Unit (in Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services [HFS]) for collection and distribution of child support and are available to ALL PARENTS in divorce actions even if they are NOT on public assistance (Public Aid), upon application by either parent, whereupon the Family Court loses jurisdiction to investigate and hear applications for change in child support unless the parents disagree with the recommendation of the HFS Child Support Unit Administrative Law Court (ALC), after the ALC investigates financial circumstances, holds a hearing and makes a recommendation to the parties. Then the parties may go back to the Family Court Judge (Trial Judge) for review of recommendations, evidentiary hearing, and decision on change in child support.
NOTE: All parents may apply to be supervised by the SDU and ALC in the Child Support Services Division (CS) of HFS. Find the address of your local office for the Illinois Child Support Unit in the Department of Healthcare and Family Services at their web site:
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR DIVORCE BIG BOOK
Note that these laws were written to be in compliance with federal codes pertaining to Social Security Title IV – 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. & amendments
1. Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act – 750 ILCS 5/506 Representation of child………………………………………………..…. 1-2
"The child representative shall not render an opinion, recommendation, or report to the court . . . but shall offer evidence-based [ NOTE NOT HEARSAY] legal argument. The child representative shall disclose the position as to what the child representative intends to advocate in a pre-trial memorandum that shall be served upon counsel of record prior to the trial. The position disclosed in the pre-trial memorandum shall not be considered evidence." ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
"Any person appointed under this Section shall file with the court within 90 days of his or her appointment, and every subsequent 90 – day period thereafter during the course of his or her representation , a detailed invoice for services rendered with a copy being sent to each party."…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
2. "Unified Child Support Services Act" 750 ILCS 24 et seq. …………………………………………………………………………………………….……… 3-6
Plan must be submitted by County State's Attorney to the [Illinois] Department of Healthcare and Family Services ("DFS") – Section 10 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
"Components of a Unified Child Support Services Program" 750 ILCS 24/15……………………………………………………………………..…..…… 4-5
" (1) Accepting applications for child support services from private Parties or referrals from any state agency [Court]"……………………… 4
"(7) Obtaining identified cases that have moved into non-compliance With obligations [arrears] . . . . "……………………………………….. 4
"(16) Marketing the Program within the county in which it is operating so that potential applicants learn about child support services offered."………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
"Child Support Program Responsibilities" – 750 ILCS 24/35 ……………………………………………………………….………………………………..… 5-6
"Operation of a statewide toll free telephone" – [for the public to obtain information even if they are not eligible for public aid]……… 5
"(2) Management and supervision of the State Disbursement Unit" By the DFS………………………………………….………………………………. 6
3. "Expedited Child Support Act of 1990" – 750 ILCS 25 et seq……………………….……………………………………………………………..………… 7-13
"Purpose" 750 ILCS 25/2 ". . modification of child support orders" ……..…………..………………………………………………………………………. 7
"Establishment of the Expedited Child Support System" 750 ILCS 25/4………….………………………………………………………………………… 8
"(1) …The System shall be available to all participants in the IV-D program, and may be made available to all persons, regardless of participation in the IV-D program…" ……………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…… 8
"(2) Implementation . . . the Chief Judge of any Circuit shall develop and Submit to the [Illinois] Supreme Court a Plan for the creation of a System ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
"(5) Implementation. The System shall be administered by Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may delegate, to the Chief Judge of each Judicial Circuit, the day-to-day administration of the system in the County. . . ." ………………………………………………………………………… 8
4. "Actions subject to Expedited Child Support Hearings" – 750 ILCS 25/5 ………………….……………………………………………………………. 9
"(1) Petitions for child support and for medical support . . . for post-judgment dissolution and . . where child support or medical support was reserved or could not be ordered at the time of entry of the judgment . . ." ………………………………….………………………………………… 9
"(2) Petitions for modification of child support and medical support in post-judgment dissolution of marriage . . . " ……………………… 9
"(4) Actions for the enforcement of any existing order for child support or medical support in post-judgment dissolution of marriage . . ."………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9
"(8) Actions brought pursuant to Article X of the Illinois Public Aid Code"……………………………………………………………………………….…. 9
"(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this Section, if the custodial parent is not a participant in the IV-D program and maintenance is in issue, the case shall be presented directly to the court."……………………………………………………………………………..….… 9
"(c) . . . the System be available in pre-judgment proceedings for dissolution of marriage, declaration of invalidity of marriage and legal separation."………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….. 9
5. "Authority of hearing officers (administrative law judges" and "Expedited Child Support Hearings" 750 ILCS 25/6 & 7……………………………………………….………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………….… 9-11
Administrative law judges [hearing officers] are by statute authorized to subpoena and collect evidence, review evidence, and make recommendations to the court as to post-dissolution of marriage child support issues, modification of child support and health insurance issues for the children. The Trial Court by statute shall refer all child support and health insurance issues to the administrative law court. Only if the parents disagree with the administrative law judge's recommendations shall the court intervene in coming up with its own decisions regarding child support and health insurance issues for the children post judgment for dissolution of marriage……………….. 9-11
"(b) in any case in which the Obligee is not participating in the IV-D program or has to apply to participate in the IV-D program, the Administrative Hearing Officer shall: (1) inform the Obligee of the existence of the IV-D program and provide applications on request; and (2) inform the Obligee and the Obligor of the option of requesting payment to be made through the Clerk of the Circuit court." ………………………………………………………………………..…………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………. 10-11
6. "Authority retained by the [trial] court" 750 ILCS 25/8 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12-13
Trail Court retains jurisdiction over all matters not related to child Support or health insurance [as well as parentage issues] for the children and must resolve issues when the parents disagree with
the recommendations of the administrative law judge ……………………………………………………….……………………………………………………… 12-13
7. "Judicial Hearings" 750 ILCS 25/9……………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………..….. 13
Defines under what circumstances the Trial Court regains Jurisdiction over post-judgment child support and child health Insurance support issues …………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
8. "Child Support Payment Act" 750 ILCS 27 ………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………… 14
Allows obligor to pay child support through a currency exchange……………..………………………………………………………………………………… 14
9. "Income Withholding for Support Act: 750 ILCS 28………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 15-24
Details the form of notice to be given to the Obligor (750 ILCS 28/20(b)- p. 17-18), by the Court Clerk and the payer by the SDU, Clerk or other public officer (750 ILCS 28/20(g) – p. 18, 750 ILCS 28/30 – p. 20), or Obligee if the SDU, Clerk or other public officer is not Ordered to be involved in support payments supervision or providing notice to payer (750 ILCS 28/20(b)&(g) – p.18); details how to deal with delinquency and how to penalize payers who refuse to withhold……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15-24
10. "Illinois Public Aid Code" 305 ILCS 5, "Determination and Enforcement of Support Responsibility of Relatives" 305 ILCS 5/Article X………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25-49
"The Department of HFS shall cause to be published and distributed publications reasonably calculated to inform the public that individuals who are not recipients or applicants for public aid under this Code are eligible for the child support enforcement services under this Article X. Such publications shall set forth the an explanation, in plain language, that the child support enforcement services program is independent of any public and aid program under the Code and that the receiving of child support enforcement services in no way implies that the person receiving such services is receiving public aid.".…………………………………………………..………………………. 25-26
"Access to records" 305 ILCS 5/10-9.5……………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
Mandates that both parents have access to all records from the Clerk, SDU, and HFS, except if there is an order of protection hiding an address or phone number, then that Address or phone number may not be revealed……………………………………………………………….. 32
"Information to State Case Registry" 305 ILCS 5/10-10.5 …………………………………………………………………………………………………..… 37-39
Establishes a section in the Department of HFS, Public Aid Division that maintains all records of child support Payment and enforcement, and requires that both parents keep the Department informed of address changes……………………………………………… 37-39
"State Disbursement Unit" 305 ILCS 5/10-26…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..….. 46-47
Establishes the SDU under the supervision of the Illinois HFS which is authorized to accept and disburse child support payments as well as to inform payers of withholding orders and penalties for failure to comply ………………………………………………………………… 46-47
"Notice of child support enforcement services" 305 ILCS 5/10-28………………………………………………………………………………………… 49
Provides that the SDU may notify the Obligor and payer of its services, as well as other parties……………………………………………….. 49
11. "Title III, Consumer Protection Act" Summary of authority and purpose of 15 USC § 1671 et seq. and 29 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 870 regarding maximum payments that may be withheld under federal law from Obligor……………………………………………………………………………. 50-51
12. 15 USC § 1671 et seq. Federal Wage Garnishment Law (Title III of the Consumer Protection Act) & corresponding 29 CFR Part 870 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………. 51-56
Mandates that when child support is an issue that federal and State taxes have priority over child support or other debts. Provides that child support has priority over other debts except for taxes. Provides that if the Obligor is not living with and supporting a spouse or child that no more than a total of 60% of net wages may be withheld from a paycheck and no more than 65% of net wages may be withheld from a paycheck if Obligor is more than 12 weeks in arrears ………………………………………………………………………..…………….………….. 52-54
'Lectric Law Library
Attorneys I recommend
Child Protection Services (DCFS in IL) Abuses
Cook County Jail – Questions & Answers – Corruption in Jails
Courtroom Local Rules for Specific Judges
Crimes in Illinois – list of code numbers and brief description
Criminal Defense – Procedures in Misdemeanor Court
Criminal Defense – Speedy Trial Case Law
Criminal Law – the Basics
Evidence – Illinois Rules
Federal Court Forms
FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)
Hearsay defined and case law
Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Jan 2012)
Interacting with Judges
Jurors can ignore an unjust law
Legal Research Service for Pro Se Counsel or Attorneys / Medical Record Review, Summary, and Organization for Attorneys
PLEASE DONATE TO SHELTON LEGAL FUND TO HELP WITH THIS CIVIL RIGHTS WORK
Procedures for Cook County Circuit Court Chancery Division
Removal to federal court of criminal case
Sample appeal brief of wrongful criminal conviction
Small Business Info
The Myth of American Justice – Part One – The Trial of Dr Linda Shelton
Trial Techniques and Strategy
United States Supreme Court Filings
Wage garnishment – child support, taxes, other
'Lectric Law Library
7th Circuit Federal Courts
American Coalition for Fathers and Children
Chicago Cop Watch
Cook County Jail Information
Cook County Judges-Documentation of Misconduct
Dr Linda Shelton
Guardians, Public and Private, Pooled Trusts for Special Needs – Good & Bad Comments
Illinois Corruption Blog
Illinois Fathers
Illinois Police Good & Bad
Pro Se Chicago\'s Weblog
Probate Court Corruption – Stealing Estates, Abusing the Elderly & Disabled
Rico & Fraud
Trustees and Guardians Abuse of Elderly and Disabled
Whistle blower's support blog
Will County Pro Se
Caught Net – The public list of judicial misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, legal misconduct, ethics violations and civil rights violations in Rhode Island and elsewhere
Deliberations Blog – Jury Selection, etc.
Illinois Administrative Rules
Illinois Statutes
Jail House Lawyer Pro Se Information
Law of the Land
Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago
Legal Defenders, P.C. – Law Firm's Blog
Links to Criminal Justice Reform Sites – On Arbitrary Justice
Pro Se Law Center
Public Defender Blog
U.S. Code Collection at Cornell
RT @JoaquinCastrotx: Update: The young girl and her family are headed to a children's hospital in the Northeast where doctors had offered t… 5 hours ago
RT @HuffPost: While searching for answers on why Iran shot the Ukrainian plane down, Canadians also have not let Trump escape blame. https:… 5 hours ago
Bail and Bond
Chancery Division
Circuit Court of Cook County
Cook County Court Clerk Dorothy Brown
DCFS
False confession
Family Court or Domestic Relations
Federal District Court
fees for court appointed child representatives
fees for guardian ad litems
Fifth Amendment
Freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Good Time Credits
Illinois Appellate Court
Illinois Government
Indigent status (In Forma Pauperis)
Jail and Prison
Judge Raymond W. Mitchell
Judge Sheila O'Brien
Judicial Corruption
Law Division
Legally Insufficient
Motions to Reconsider
Municipal 1 Division
Outrageous Government Conduct
Pro Se Counsel
Right to Counsel
Self Representation
Speedy Trial
Standby Counsel
Void v Voidable
Stand up for whistleblower who helps others behind the scenes
Complaint for mandamus; civil rights relief from incompetent judges
2018 U.S. and Illinois criminal law regarding insanity, temporary insanity, fitness, and mental illness
Judicial endorsement 3/20/18
Help when children falsely removed by DCFS in Cook County, IL
Add new tag Appeal Attorney Misconduct Black Line Trial Call child custody child support Circuit Court of Cook County Civil Rights Cook County Circuit Court Cook County Court Clerk court abuse of families courts Criminal Contempt Criminal Defense david wessel DCFS defense Denial of Counsel Discovery divorce domestic relations Dorothy Brown Due Process Equal Protection Evidence Excessive Bail Exhaustion of State Remedies False Arrest Faretta Fifth Amendment Filing Complaint First Amendment Fitness Fourteenth Amendment Fraud Upon the Court Good Time Jail Credits Government Corruption Habeas Corpus Illinois Illinois Supreme Court Indigent Petition Injustice Innocence Judge Alonso Judge Ballard Judge Colleen Sheehan Judge E. Kenneth Wright Judge Fletcher Judge Joseph Kazmierski Judge Kathleen Pantle Judge Katz Judge Maria Kuriakos Ciesil Judge Pantle Judge Petrone Judge Timothy Evans Judge William D. Maddux Judicial Arrogance Judicial Corruption Judicial Incompetence Judicial Misconduct Justice Law Division Malicious Prosecution Mandamus Medicaid Fraud notice Outrageous Conduct of Judge Pro Se Prosecutorial Corruption Prosecutorial Misconduct Redress of Grievances Self Representation Sixth Amendment Standby Counsel Unlawful Arrest
illinoiscorruption.blogsp…
Pro Se Chicago
Court Procedures, Sample Pleadings, Court Issues