Matos v. Badea
Nonprecedential Rule 23(b) written order. Because it was entered on or after January 1, 2021, it may be cited for persuasive purposes under Rule 23(e)(1), but it is not binding precedent. Status is based on the stored -U public-domain citation; verify the official disposition and later docket history.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services sought child support from Daniel Badea on behalf of the child's mother, Shaina Matos. After Badea failed to appear at the support hearing, the circuit court imputed minimum-wage income to him and entered monthly, medical insurance, and retroactive support awards. The First District affirmed, holding that Badea's failure to supply a transcript or Rule 323 substitute required the court to presume the support order conformed to the law and had a sufficient factual basis.
Key Facts
Support obligation arose from respondent's voluntary acknowledgment of paternity under section 12 of the Vital Records Act, dated August 16, 2021.
Department filed its complaint in September 2024; a temporary order of $100 per month was entered November 27, 2024.
Respondent was held in contempt on August 27, 2025, for nonpayment and failure to produce tax information, and was jailed, then released on a $1,000 bond.
His October 22, 2025 financial affidavit claimed unemployment and $21,450 gross income the prior year, with no supporting documentation; he refused to be sworn in at the Zoom hearing.
Ordered to appear in person October 23 and warned that failure to provide financial information could result in imputed income; he did not appear.
Matos testified respondent owns MVMIX recording studio and earned roughly $10,000 per month from 2021 to 2023; the court found her income was $2,100 per month and imputed $2,877 per month (minimum wage) to respondent.
Awards: $533.17 monthly child support, $73.74 monthly for medical insurance, $5,906 retroactive support.
No transcript, certified bystander's report, or agreed statement of facts was filed on appeal.
Procedural History
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County (No. 24-D-52203, Judge Robert W. Johnson) to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division. Respondent appealed pro se from the October 23, 2025 child support order. The Department moved to strike the brief and dismiss for Rule 341 and Rule 6 violations (unpaginated brief, inaccurate table of contents, no record citations, no pinpoint cites, and citation to nonexistent cases); the court declined to dismiss but disregarded unsupported arguments and improperly cited or nonexistent cases.
Holdings
Affirmed. Under Foutch v. O'Bryant , the appellant bears the burden of providing a sufficient record; absent a transcript or Rule 323 substitute, the court presumes the support order conformed to law and had a sufficient factual basis, including the imputed $2,877 figure, Matos's $2,100 actual income, and the absence of 146 overnights. Review of support determinations is for abuse of discretion , with the factual predicate reviewed against the manifest weight of the evidence .
The order's reliance on respondent's continuing ownership of the recording studio and his 2021–2023 earnings satisfied the specific written findings requirement of section 505(a)(3.2b).
Sections 505(a)(3.2a)/(3.2b) written findings apply only when income is imputed; section 505(a)(1.5) requires no additional written findings for an actual-income determination.
Section 505(a)(1.5) does not require the court to complete the Department's worksheet; worksheets exist to aid the calculation (statutory construction, de novo in substance).
Arguments raised first in the reply brief (arithmetic error; credit for temporary payments) are forfeited under Rule 341(h)(7); the arithmetic discrepancy was harmless because it benefited respondent.
Failure to appear at the hearing forfeits evidence the party might otherwise have presented ( Dale v. Bennett ).
Legal Principles
Parentage Act section 801(a) (750 ILCS 46/801(a)) directs use of Marriage Act sections 505 and 505.2. Section 505(a)(1.5) sets the four-step basic obligation computation; sections 505(a)(3.2a)/(3.2b) govern imputation of potential income and require specific written findings; section 505(a)(3.4) addresses deviation factors, not parenting time; section 505(a)(3.8) shared physical care applies only if each parent exercises 146 or more overnights per year. Cited: Foutch v. O'Bryant , 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984); In re A.H. , 2023 IL App (1st) 190572; In re N.B. , 191 Ill. 2d 338 (2000); In re Jarquan B. , 2017 IL 121483; Walters v. Rodriguez ; Holzrichter v. Yorath ; In re Marriage of Ash and Matschke ; In re Detention of Traynoff ; Dale v. Bennett . Clarifications: no worksheet-completion mandate; no written findings required for actual-income findings.
Practical Implications
Always order the transcript or prepare a Rule 323 bystander's report; record-based attacks on income findings fail without one.
When seeking imputation, build the 505(a)(3.2a) factor record through testimony (assets, business ownership, earning history) and ensure the order recites the basis.
Do not expect findings on the other parent's education or job search where the court found actual income rather than imputing.
Shared care under 505(a)(3.8) must be affirmatively proven by evidence of 146+ overnights for each parent.
Preserve all arguments in the opening brief; reply-brief arguments are forfeited, and errors benefiting the appellant are harmless.
Non-appearance at a support hearing forfeits the client's evidence; warn clients of imputation warnings in prior orders.
Counterpoint: a complete record with contrary evidence could support a challenge to the imputed amount or the lack of labor-market support.
Limitations/Caveats
Rule 23(b) order — not precedential except under Rule 23(e)(1). The statutory interpretations of sections 505(a)(1.5) (no worksheet requirement) and 505(a)(3.8) are reasoned holdings but non-precedential; the forfeiture/harmless-error discussions are alternative grounds. The admonition about pro se compliance with supreme court rules is guidance rather than the basis for disposition.
Overview
The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services sought child support from Daniel Badea on behalf of the child's mother, Shaina Matos. After Badea failed to appear at the support hearing, the circuit court imputed minimum-wage income to him and entered monthly, medical insurance, and retroactive support awards. The First District affirmed, holding that Badea's failure to supply a transcript or Rule 323 substitute required the court to presume the support order conformed to the law and had a sufficient factual basis.
Key Facts
Support obligation arose from respondent's voluntary acknowledgment of paternity under section 12 of the Vital Records Act, dated August 16, 2021.
Department filed its complaint in September 2024; a temporary order of $100 per month was entered November 27, 2024.
Respondent was held in contempt on August 27, 2025, for nonpayment and failure to produce tax information, and was jailed, then released on a $1,000 bond.
His October 22, 2025 financial affidavit claimed unemployment and $21,450 gross income the prior year, with no supporting documentation; he refused to be sworn in at the Zoom hearing.
Ordered to appear in person October 23 and warned that failure to provide financial information could result in imputed income; he did not appear.
Matos testified respondent owns MVMIX recording studio and earned roughly $10,000 per month from 2021 to 2023; the court found her income was $2,100 per month and imputed $2,877 per month (minimum wage) to respondent.
Awards: $533.17 monthly child support, $73.74 monthly for medical insurance, $5,906 retroactive support.
No transcript, certified bystander's report, or agreed statement of facts was filed on appeal.
Procedural History
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County (No. 24-D-52203, Judge Robert W. Johnson) to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division. Respondent appealed pro se from the October 23, 2025 child support order. The Department moved to strike the brief and dismiss for Rule 341 and Rule 6 violations (unpaginated brief, inaccurate table of contents, no record citations, no pinpoint cites, and citation to nonexistent cases); the court declined to dismiss but disregarded unsupported arguments and improperly cited or nonexistent cases.
Holdings
Affirmed. Under Foutch v. O'Bryant , the appellant bears the burden of providing a sufficient record; absent a transcript or Rule 323 substitute, the court presumes the support order conformed to law and had a sufficient factual basis, including the imputed $2,877 figure, Matos's $2,100 actual income, and the absence of 146 overnights. Review of support determinations is for abuse of discretion , with the factual predicate reviewed against the manifest weight of the evidence .
The order's reliance on respondent's continuing ownership of the recording studio and his 2021–2023 earnings satisfied the specific written findings requirement of section 505(a)(3.2b).
Sections 505(a)(3.2a)/(3.2b) written findings apply only when income is imputed; section 505(a)(1.5) requires no additional written findings for an actual-income determination.
Section 505(a)(1.5) does not require the court to complete the Department's worksheet; worksheets exist to aid the calculation (statutory construction, de novo in substance).
Arguments raised first in the reply brief (arithmetic error; credit for temporary payments) are forfeited under Rule 341(h)(7); the arithmetic discrepancy was harmless because it benefited respondent.
Failure to appear at the hearing forfeits evidence the party might otherwise have presented ( Dale v. Bennett ).
Legal Principles
Parentage Act section 801(a) (750 ILCS 46/801(a)) directs use of Marriage Act sections 505 and 505.2. Section 505(a)(1.5) sets the four-step basic obligation computation; sections 505(a)(3.2a)/(3.2b) govern imputation of potential income and require specific written findings; section 505(a)(3.4) addresses deviation factors, not parenting time; section 505(a)(3.8) shared physical care applies only if each parent exercises 146 or more overnights per year. Cited: Foutch v. O'Bryant , 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984); In re A.H. , 2023 IL App (1st) 190572; In re N.B. , 191 Ill. 2d 338 (2000); In re Jarquan B. , 2017 IL 121483; Walters v. Rodriguez ; Holzrichter v. Yorath ; In re Marriage of Ash and Matschke ; In re Detention of Traynoff ; Dale v. Bennett . Clarifications: no worksheet-completion mandate; no written findings required for actual-income findings.
Practical Implications
Always order the transcript or prepare a Rule 323 bystander's report; record-based attacks on income findings fail without one.
When seeking imputation, build the 505(a)(3.2a) factor record through testimony (assets, business ownership, earning history) and ensure the order recites the basis.
Do not expect findings on the other parent's education or job search where the court found actual income rather than imputing.
Shared care under 505(a)(3.8) must be affirmatively proven by evidence of 146+ overnights for each parent.
Preserve all arguments in the opening brief; reply-brief arguments are forfeited, and errors benefiting the appellant are harmless.
Non-appearance at a support hearing forfeits the client's evidence; warn clients of imputation warnings in prior orders.
Counterpoint: a complete record with contrary evidence could support a challenge to the imputed amount or the lack of labor-market support.
Limitations/Caveats
Rule 23(b) order — not precedential except under Rule 23(e)(1). The statutory interpretations of sections 505(a)(1.5) (no worksheet requirement) and 505(a)(3.8) are reasoned holdings but non-precedential; the forfeiture/harmless-error discussions are alternative grounds. The admonition about pro se compliance with supreme court rules is guidance rather than the basis for disposition.
Disclaimer: This case summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. Always consult with a licensed attorney for specific legal questions.
Questions About Child Support?
Start with a conflict-check intake. If cleared, our office can review the relevant income and parenting-time information.
Start Conflict-Check IntakeLegal Assistant
This tool answers general questions about the text of this summary. It does not give legal advice, it does not know the facts of your case, and its answers may be wrong.
Disclaimer: This AI analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Always verify any AI-generated content against the official court opinion.