Gitlin Law Firm 2010 Illinois Divorce and Paternity Case and ...

alleged modified agreement to writing or bring it before the court despite the
equivocal "agreement" he received from Christina, it was unreasonable for him to
rely on the alleged modifications and not pay his share of uncovered medical
expenses prior to Christina filing a petition for an adjudication of indirect civil
contempt. He was fully aware of the existence of the original agreement as to
uncovered medical expenses. We do not believe his conduct supports a finding of
civil contempt. Instead, we conclude his conduct was not justified and he remains
responsible for his share of uncovered medical expenses and the attorney Christina
incurred seeking to enforce the original agreement.
Comment: The better issue would have been fees under §508(b), i.e., whether he could maintain his
burden of demonstrating compelling cause or justification for non-compliance. Strategically, this
should have been the ex-wife's focus rather than the contempt issue.
Evidence, Discovery Cases and Other
Guardianship
Guardianship of Children:
TPS - Co-guardian of Children Who Was Not Biologically Related Has Standing to Oppose
Petition to Terminate Guardianship Brought by Her Long Term Same Sex Partner
In Re T.P.S. 2011 IL App (5th) 100617 (June 20, 2011)
The parties were involved in a long term same-sex relationship, during which the Petitioner (Dee)
gave birth to two children. The respondent, Cathy, became co-guardian of each child pursuant to a
guardianship set up for each child shortly after the birth of each. The petition filed after the birth of
the first child alleged, among other things, that the two women already shared in T.P.S.’s daily care
and that they both provided for his financial needs. A court-appointed guardian ad litem
recommended that the court grant the petition. After the birth of the second child, a similar
procedure was filed. After the parties ended their relationship, Dee sought to terminate the
guardianships. Cathy argued that she had standing and that while the superior-rights doctrine is a
presumption it is not absolute. She noted that once a guardianship has been established, a
biological parent seeking to terminate the guardianship must show that a substantial change in
circumstances has occurred and the court must consider whether terminating the guardianship is
in the children’s best interests. The trial court found that Cathy lacked standing to oppose Dee’s
petitions because she was not the children’s biological or adoptive parent based on the superior
rights doctrine. The appellate court noted the following colloquy between Cathy’s lawyer and the
judge:
“COURT: Where is the standing for a determination such as this?
MS. SCHAFER: The determination to be made?
COURT: Yeah. Michelle, I understand what’s going on here. These two have split
up.
Gitlin Law Firm, P.C.
Page 34 of 49
www.GitlinLawFirm.com