child support 101/102 - The Gitlin Law Firm

J. Deviations from the Support Guidelines:
There are three lines of case law which are commonly addressed in the deviation cases: 1)
cases where there is equal or nearly equal parenting time for each party; 2) cases where the payor
is in the high income category; 3) cases whether custody of the children is split. The split
custody cases will be addressed in my outline regarding rules of thumb in divorce cases.
1. Deviations In Cases with Extensive Parenting Time:
A relatively recent case is often cited in support of the proposition the trial court should not
consider extensive parenting time to the non-residential parent as a possible deviation factor.
IRMO DeMattia, 302 Ill.App.3d 390, 235 Ill.Dec. 807, 706 N.E.2d 67 (4th Dist. 1999), GDR 99-
22. The DeMattia court however, only affirmed the refusal of the trial court to deviate
downward from minimum statutory child support guidelines; although father had extensive
visitation. The Fourth District court held that the payor was not entitled to automatic child
support reduction.
The appellate court expressed that it was not making a broad-based rule about downward
deviations from the minimum child support guidelines:
“We do not suggest a trial court could never deviate downward from the
guidelines based on the noncustodial parent's extended provision of care for his or
her children. We do not seek to discourage noncustodial parents from having
substantial contact with their children. The benefit a noncustodial parent receives
from having substantial involvement with his or her children cannot be measured
by dollars. There should not be an automatic deduction in child support because a
noncustodial parent has the opportunity to spend substantial time with the children
and fulfill a parental responsibility. Caring for one's own children is not day care
nor is it a chore for which to be compensated. Our decision is not a criticism of
[the husband] for asking this interesting question, but we decline the invitation to
add a new layer of complexity to custody and support decisions. Our decision is
limited to the facts in this case.” (Emphasis in original)
A case somewhat contrary to DeMattia is IRMO Reppen-Sonneson, 299 Ill.App.3d 691, 233
Ill.Dec. 885, 701 N.E.2d 1159 (2d Dist. 1998). It held that the trial court not obligated to rely on
statutory guidelines where parents equally shared custody of children. Child support by husband
to wife below statutory guidelines was affirmed. In Reppen-Sonneson, the husband was required
to pay 15% of his net income for support of three children. The appellate court stated:
“The parties agreed to share in the legal and physical custody of their three
children. Because both parents share the custody of the children, the trial court
was not obligated to rely on the statutory guidelines. In this case, only [the father]
was ordered to pay $75 per week in child support. In addition to providing the
sole support, [the father] pays the children's health insurance and 75% of any
extraordinary medical expenses such as orthodontia. [The father] has just as much
responsibility in caring for the children as [the mother]. We do not find that the
court abused its discretion.”
Child Support to Visiting Parent: In IRMO Cesaretti, 203 Ill.App.3d 347, 149 Ill.Dec. 28, 561
N.E.2d 306 (2d Dist. 1990), the court held that where parties share parenting time relatively
equally, the trial court did not err in requiring custodial parent to pay child support to
Gitlin Law Firm, P.C. 1-46 www.gitlinlawfirm.com