In re Marriage of Isom, 2025 IL App (3d) 240491-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Isom, 2025 IL App (3d) 240491-U - In In re Marriage of Isom, the Third District affirmed the denial of a father's request to reduce his $909 monthly child support obligation after he claimed loss of work authorization, finding that the trial court had determined his change in circumstances was voluntary rather than involuntary. Critically, the appellate court applied the Foutch v. O'Bryant doctrine—which presumes the trial court acted properly when an appellant fails to provide an adequate record—because Kareem submitted no transcript, bystander's report, or supporting documentation on appeal.

The opposing counsel in In re Marriage of Isom thought he had an airtight argument: "I lost my work authorization, Your Honor. I can't pay child support anymore." The Third District just handed him a masterclass in why procedural discipline isn't optional—it's the difference between winning and watching your appeal evaporate.

This June 2025 decision is a blueprint for what happens when you walk into court unprepared, undocumented, and underwhelming. Let me break down exactly why Gbolahan Kareem lost, what Angela Isom's team did right, and how you can weaponize these lessons in your own high-stakes Illinois family law matter.

The Setup: A Modification Motion Built on Sand

Kareem sought to reduce his $909 monthly child support obligation, claiming a "substantial change in circumstances"—specifically, the loss or expiration of his U.S. work authorization. On paper, that sounds compelling. Immigration status changes can legitimately affect earning capacity.

But here's where the wheels came off: the trial court found his change in circumstances was voluntary. And when Kareem appealed, he failed to provide the appellate court with virtually anything it needed to reverse that finding.

No transcript. No bystander's report. No agreed statement of proceedings. No income documentation. No CIS correspondence. Nothing.

The Third District didn't need to reach the merits. Under Foutch v. O'Bryant, when you fail to provide an adequate record, the appellate court presumes the trial court acted properly. Game over before it started.

The Voluntariness Trap: Why "I Can't Work" Isn't Enough

Illinois courts don't simply accept "I lost my job" or "I can't work legally" as automatic grounds for support modification. The critical question is whether the change was voluntary or involuntary—and the burden falls squarely on the party seeking modification to prove it.

The trial court in Isom had already imputed income to Kareem for willful underemployment in prior proceedings. That history created a credibility deficit he never overcame. When you've been found to be gaming the system before, every subsequent claim of financial hardship gets scrutinized through that lens.

For high-net-worth cases, this principle cuts both ways. If your opposing party suddenly claims they "can't" earn what they previously earned, you need to:


Subpoena employment records, tax returns, and bank statements
Investigate whether any "loss" of income was engineered
Examine digital footprints—LinkedIn activity, business registrations, consulting arrangements
Depose their accountant and any business partners


Cyber due diligence isn't just for corporate litigation anymore. In family law, a party's digital behavior often tells a very different story than their sworn financial affidavits.

The Record Preservation Imperative

This case should be required reading for every Illinois family law practitioner—and every self-represented litigant who thinks they can wing it on appeal.

The trial court's order explicitly stated it was denying the modification for "reasons stated of record." Kareem never obtained or filed those reasons. The appellate court was left with nothing to review except the bare order itself.

That's not a legal strategy. That's procedural malpractice.

If you're litigating a contested modification—or any family law matter you might appeal—you must:


Hire a court reporter or ensure the court's recording system is functioning
Order transcripts immediately after any substantive hearing
File a bystander's report if no transcript exists, per Supreme Court Rule 323
Create an agreed statement with opposing counsel if both parties stipulate to the facts


Without the record, you have no appeal. Period.

Briefing Failures: Self-Representation Is Not a Shield

Kareem represented himself on appeal. The Third District noted his brief contained "incorrect/unsupported citations" and violated Rule 341(h)(7) by failing to cite authorities and record pages.

The court's response was unequivocal: self-represented litigants are held to the same procedural standards as licensed attorneys.

This isn't cruelty. It's equality before the law. And it's a warning to anyone who thinks they can save money by handling their own high-stakes family law appeal.

Rule 341 compliance isn't bureaucratic box-checking. It's the architecture of persuasion. When you fail to cite the record, you're asking the appellate court to take your word for what happened below. They won't. When you fail to cite legal authority, you're asking them to do your research. They won't do that either.

The MSA Factor: Your Settlement Agreement Has Teeth

The parties' Marital Settlement Agreement, incorporated into the dissolution judgment, set child support at $909 per month. That incorporation matters.

Once an MSA becomes part of a court order, it carries the full force of that order. Modification requires meeting statutory standards for changed circumstances—and overcoming any contractual provisions about modification that the parties agreed to.

If your MSA contains specific language about when and how support can be modified, that language will be enforced. If it contains a waiver of modification rights, you may be locked in regardless of subsequent financial changes.

This is why MSA drafting is not the place to cut corners. Every clause, every term, every definition matters. What feels like minor language during settlement negotiations becomes binding constraint when circumstances change.

Strategic Takeaways for Illinois Family Law Practitioners

For Payors Seeking Modification:

Document everything before you file. Bank statements, tax returns, job search logs, correspondence with immigration authorities, medical records—all of it.
Address voluntariness head-on at the hearing. Don't assume the court will infer involuntariness from the circumstances.
Make a clear evidentiary proffer about how your earning capacity has changed and why imputation would be inappropriate.
Preserve the record as if your appeal depends on it—because it does.


For Payees Defending Against Modification:

Investigate the claimed change thoroughly. Subpoena records. Conduct discovery.
Highlight any prior findings of voluntary underemployment or bad faith.
Examine digital evidence for inconsistencies between claimed circumstances and actual behavior.
If the other side fails to preserve the record, their appeal becomes your victory.


The Cyber-Family Law Nexus

Immigration status, work authorization, and international employment arrangements are increasingly common in high-net-worth divorces. These cases require lawyers who understand both the family law implications and the digital/documentary trail that proves or disproves claimed circumstances.

When a party claims they "can't work" due to immigration issues, the evidence exists somewhere: USCIS correspondence, visa applications, employer communications, international wire transfers, foreign business registrations. The question is whether you know how to find it and authenticate it.

Cyber negligence in discovery—failing to preserve electronically stored information, failing to search cloud accounts, failing to examine metadata—is leverage. If your opposing party or their counsel has been sloppy with digital evidence, that sloppiness can be weaponized.

The Bottom Line

In re Marriage of Isom is a nonprecedential Rule 23 order, which means it can't be cited as binding authority. But its lessons are universal:


Procedural discipline wins cases.
Record preservation is non-negotiable.
Voluntariness determinations require affirmative proof.
Self-representation is not a license for sloppiness.
MSAs incorporated into judgments carry lasting force.


Kareem walked into the Third District with an empty briefcase and walked out with an affirmed denial. His opposition didn't need to be brilliant. They just needed to be prepared.

That's the difference between winning and losing in Illinois family law: preparation, documentation, and procedural ruthlessness.

If you're facing a modification battle—on either side—or navigating a high-net-worth dissolution where immigration, employment authorization, or international assets are in play, you need counsel who understands both the substantive law and the procedural warfare that determines outcomes.

Book a consultation now. Your opposition is already making mistakes. Let's make sure you're positioned to capitalize on every single one.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, ISC2 CC, Google Cybersecurity Professional Certificate). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Case Assessment

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.