In re parentage of D.O.

- Case citation and parties
In re Parentage of D.O., 2025 IL App (3d) 240645‑U (Oct. 15, 2025) (Rule 23 order; not precedent). Petitioner‑Appellee: Christie Capalety. Respondent‑Appellant: Dominic O’Neill. (Du Page County Cir. Ct., No. 22 FA 549; Judge Robert E. Douglas.)

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in calculating O’Neill’s income for child support/arrearage when he failed to produce tax returns, P&Ls, or complete records.
2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allocating payment responsibility for significant educational/extracurricular (hockey) expenses.

- Holding/outcome
Affirmed. The appellate court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (a) determining O’Neill’s income based on bank deposits and his admitted hourly wage and (b) allocating half of the hockey expenses to O’Neill. O’Neill’s motion to reconsider was denied.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: findings on child support and arrearages are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Trial court credibility: O’Neill’s income testimony was inconsistent and not credible; he commingled accounts, failed to produce records, and charged personal expenses to business accounts.
- Permissible inference: where a party fails to produce evidence within their control, courts may presume the evidence would be adverse. Given the lack of credible, complete documentation, the trial court reasonably relied on bank deposits and O’Neill’s admitted hourly rate to extrapolate annual income ($173,150.02).
- Record deficiencies on appeal: O’Neill’s appellate brief omitted trial exhibits (notably the bank statements). The panel noted Rule 341/342 requirements and that pro se litigants are held to the same rules, but nevertheless reviewed for abuse of discretion and applied the Foutch presumption in favor of the trial court where the appellate record was incomplete.
- Extracurricular expenses: the record did not show the court failed to account for payments O’Neill allegedly made; his inconsistent testimony defeated his challenge.

- Practice implications for family law practitioners
- Preserve and produce complete financial records (tax returns, P&L, balance sheets, bank statements). Failure permits adverse inferences and court extrapolation of income.
- Avoid commingling business/personal funds; maintain contemporaneous documentation of reimbursements, barter arrangements, and fringe benefits.
- When appealing, ensure compliance with Ill. S. Ct. Rules 341/342: include all trial exhibits and supporting pleadings or risk waiver or unfavorable presumptions.
- For clients paying extracurricular/education costs, keep clear receipts and contemporaneous proof of payments to avoid allocation disputes.
- Anticipate trial courts will use bank deposits and lifestyle evidence to calculate support when formal records are missing.