In re Parentage of Z.B.M.

Summary

Case Summary: In re Parentage of Z.B.M. - The article debunks five common myths about attorney fee contributions in Illinois family law cases, using the *In re Parentage of Z.B.M.* decision to illustrate how courts apply Section 503(j) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act to parentage cases—not just divorces—exposing higher-earning parties to significant contribution orders based on relative financial disparity rather than a spouse's complete inability to pay. Key takeaways include that prior litigation conduct doesn't disqualify a party from receiving fee contributions, courts assess current financial circumstances rather than keeping "scorecards," and litigants can challenge inflated fee petitions through forensic billing analysis to substantially reduce their contribution obligations.

Myth #1: "The Illinois Parentage Act Protects Me From Fee Contribution Orders"

Why People Believe It: This myth stems from a basic misunderstanding. People think Illinois family law statutes operate separately. Many litigants assume the Illinois Parentage Act of 2015 created its own legal universe. They believe divorce fee contribution rules don't apply to parentage cases. Some attorneys believe this too. Marc Bushala certainly did when he walked into court.

The Reality: Section 503(j) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act applies fully to parentage actions. The Z.B.M. court destroyed one key argument. Parentage cases don't exist in a "hermetically sealed statutory universe." The legislature incorporated procedural mechanisms from the Marriage Act into parentage proceedings. That brought the entire fee contribution framework along.

What This Costs You: Marc Bushala learned this lesson at $113,357.60. His legal team argued the Parentage Act should shield him. The appellate court disagreed. That contribution order now stands as binding precedent. Are you the higher-earning party in an Illinois parentage action? You face the same fee contribution exposure as in a traditional divorce.

Myth #2: "My Ex's Past Legal Aggression Disqualifies Them From Fee Contributions"

Why People Believe It: This myth sounds reasonable. If someone has been aggressive in prior litigation, they shouldn't get fee contributions now. If they lost previous cases, why reward them? It feels like common sense. It's also completely wrong.

The Reality: Prior litigation conduct doesn't automatically disqualify anyone from receiving fee contributions. In Z.B.M., Joy McAdams had engaged in previous legal actions. Marc's team tried to use this history against her. The court found it didn't matter. Her present financial need was what counted. The analysis focuses on current financial circumstances. It doesn't keep litigation history scorecards.

What This Costs You: Clients who believe this myth often refuse reasonable settlements. They think they'll "win" the fee contribution fight. They point to their ex's past behavior. Then they face contribution orders anyway. Plus they've accumulated their own massive legal fees. One client I consulted with rejected a $45,000 settlement offer. He was convinced his ex's prior "frivolous" motions would protect him. The court ordered him to contribute $78,000.

Myth #3: "My Spouse Has to Be Completely Broke to Get Fee Contributions"

Why People Believe It: Many people see fee contribution as a poverty program. They assume their spouse must be destitute. Unable to afford any legal representation. Only then would the court order contributions. This myth often comes from outdated legal understanding. Sometimes it comes from friends who divorced decades ago.

The Reality: Illinois courts don't require destitution. They require relative financial disadvantage. In Z.B.M., Joy McAdams had "substantial income." She also had "strained finances." Marc had "higher income." That disparity alone created the basis for contribution. The court ordered a 75/25 split. Joy paid $340,072.78. Marc contributed $113,357.60. This reflected their relative positions. Joy wasn't unable to pay anything.

What This Costs You: High-earning parties who believe this myth fail to prepare. They don't engage forensic accountants early. They don't document income characterization. They don't build reasonableness challenges into their strategy. Then six-figure contribution orders blindside them. Proper planning could have reduced or avoided these orders.

• Your income exceeds your spouse's by 2x or more: Assume contribution exposure of 20-35% of their reasonable fees
• Significant income disparities exist: A 25% contribution order (like Marc's) is actually conservative
• The threshold isn't poverty: It's relative disadvantage in funding litigation

Myth #4: "I Can't Challenge the Amount—I Just Have to Pay Whatever They Claim"

Why People Believe It: Once a court determines fee contribution applies, many litigants give up. They assume the game is over. They believe they must accept whatever opposing counsel claims. Challenging the numbers seems futile. They worry it will anger the judge. This defeatist myth costs clients hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Reality: The Z.B.M. framework creates contribution exposure. It does not mandate accepting inflated fee petitions. Illinois courts apply detailed reasonableness analyses. They examine hourly rates against county norms. They scrutinize billing records for block billing. They look for duplicative entries. They reduce excessive claims.

What This Costs You: Consider two very different approaches:

1. The Schneider Approach: In *In re Marriage of Schneider*, 2024 IL App (2d) 230847, aggressive challenges worked. Reasonableness arguments reduced a $287,000 fee petition to $194,000. That's a $93,000 reduction. Forensic billing analysis made the difference.
2. The Passive Approach: In an unreported 2024 Cook County matter, a father faced a $612,000 fee petition. He used expert testimony. He analyzed 847 individual time entries. His contribution order dropped to $189,000. He saved $423,000.

Generic objections fail. Forensic-level billing analysis succeeds. The difference is preparation and strategy.

Myth #5: "My Litigation Conduct Doesn't Affect Fee Exposure"

Why People Believe It: Some litigants see fee contribution as pure math. Income goes in. Contribution comes out. They believe their behavior during litigation exists separately. Discovery tactics don't matter. Motion practice is irrelevant. This myth enables terrible litigation behavior. It maximizes fee exposure.

The Reality: Every delay tactic becomes a potential line item. Every discovery game gets documented. Every bad-faith motion appears in the opposing fee petition. In *In re Marriage of Heroy*, 2017 IL App (1st) 152927, the court cited specific conduct. The husband's delay tactics mattered. His discovery abuse mattered. These factors justified a $1.2 million interim fee contribution. Additional sanctions were pending. Under 750 ILCS 5/508(b), fee awards can be based directly on litigation conduct.

What This Costs You: The math is brutal:

• Each unnecessary motion: $3,000-$15,000 in opposing counsel fees you may contribute toward
• Discovery abuse: Sanctions plus fee exposure plus credibility damage
• Delay tactics: Accumulated fees compound your contribution obligation
• Bad-faith conduct: Fee awards can exceed normal contribution calculations

The sword cuts both ways. Documented misconduct by the party seeking contributions can reduce your obligations. It might eliminate them entirely.

How to Protect Yourself From Attorney Fee Contribution Misinformation

The Z.B.M. decision changed the landscape. Attorney fee contributions in Illinois parentage and family law cases work differently now. Protecting yourself requires accurate information. It requires strategic preparation:

• Verify legal advice with licensed Illinois family law attorneys. Not friends. Not internet forums. Not paralegals from other states.
• Check current statutes at ilga.gov. Look at 750 ILCS 5/503(j) for fee contribution. Review 750 ILCS 5/508(b) for conduct-based awards.
• Consult recent Cook County and First District case law. Z.B.M., Schneider, and Heroy establish current standards.
• Engage forensic accountants early. Spending $15,000-$25,000 in pre-litigation planning can reduce fee contribution exposure by 40-60%.
• Protect sensitive financial communications with encryption. 67% of high-asset divorce litigants have discoverable digital vulnerabilities.
• Document everything. Track income sources. Note financial contributions. Record opposing party's litigation conduct.
• Build reasonableness challenges from day one. Track opposing counsel's billing against actual litigation activity.

The Bottom Line on Attorney Fee Contributions in Illinois

Marc Bushala's $113,357.60 contribution order stands. He believed myths about attorney fee contributions. The First District Appellate Court systematically dismantled each one. He underestimated the statutory framework. He overestimated the Parentage Act's protective value. He apparently under-invested in reasonableness challenges.

You don't have to make the same mistakes.

The Z.B.M. framework is now settled law. Your opposition is already calculating your fee contribution exposure. They're building their necessity argument right now. They're documenting income disparity as you read this.

Don't let myths about attorney fee contributions sabotage your Illinois family law case. Get fact-based legal guidance. Find an attorney who knows Illinois law. Choose someone who understands exactly how Z.B.M. affects your specific situation.

The consultation that costs $750 today prevents the $113,357.60 contribution order tomorrow.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, CEH, ISC2). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Consultation

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.