In re Parentage of G.L.

Overview

In this Du Page County parentage case, the Third District affirmed the circuit court's allocation of joint significant decision-making and equal parenting time over the mother's objection, but reversed the court's financial rulings. The court held that the Parentage Act mandates child support retroactive to the date of service of summons, that support must be calculated on the most current income evidence admitted at trial, and that the mother was improperly deprived of the promised hearing on contribution to attorney fees and reallocation of GAL fees.

Key Facts

Unmarried parents of G.L. (born 2018), who has ADHD and neurofibromatosis; father Nicholas filed a parentage petition on August 17, 2022, served on Victoria August 24, 2022.

A GAL was appointed under section 506; fees were initially split 50/50, then reallocated by a pretrial judge on April 25, 2024, to 75% Nicholas / 25% Victoria, retroactive to appointment.

February 26, 2024 temporary support order set $683.39/month based on 2023 gross monthly incomes of $13,733 (Nicholas) and $4,060 (Victoria); retroactive support was reserved.

Trial evidence showed updated gross monthly incomes of $14,334.16 (Nicholas) and $4,133 (Victoria).

Despite communication problems and competing abuse allegations, the parties jointly agreed on a neuropsychological evaluation, ADHD medication, a 504 plan, and an IEP; the GAL recommended joint decision-making and equal parenting time after addressing each statutory factor.

The trial judge repeatedly stated on the record that contribution/fee motions would be heard "on a separate date," then summarily denied them in the one-page allocation order and reset GAL fees to 50/50.

Victoria testified she borrowed more than $50,000 from her father for fees; the amount of her outstanding fees was never established at trial.

Procedural History

Appeal from the circuit court of the 18th Judicial Circuit, Du Page County (Judge Michael H. Burton), following a 13-day trial held over 16 months and a February 11, 2026 allocation order. Accelerated appeal under Rule 311(a) ; good cause found to extend the disposition deadline due to briefing extensions.

Holdings

The award of joint decision-making and equal parenting time was not against the manifest weight of the evidence ; the court properly presumed consideration of the sections 602.5(c) and 602.7(b) factors and declined to reweigh credibility.

Denial of retroactive support was an abuse of discretion : section 802(a) of the Parentage Act mandates support commencing with the date summons is served; section 802(e) permits discretionary support for earlier periods.

Setting permanent support by adopting a prior income withholding order based on outdated income was an abuse of discretion; the relevant focus is the parent's economic situation at the time of calculation.

Summarily denying the contribution petition after promising a separate hearing was an abuse of discretion under sections 503(j) and 508(a).

Resetting GAL fees to a 50/50 split without hearing or argument was an abuse of discretion (section 506(b) incorporates section 508 standards).

Arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief (including failure to rule on the motion to suspend parenting time) are forfeited; that motion was implicitly denied.

Legal Principles

750 ILCS 5/505(a), 503(j), 506(b), 508(a), 600(d), 602.5, 602.7 (West 2024); 750 ILCS 46/802(a), 802(e), 809(a) (West 2024); Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7); Ill. S. Ct. R. 311(a).

Key cases: In re Parentage of J.W. , 2013 IL 114817; Jameson v. Williams , 2020 IL App (3d) 200048; Whitehead , 2018 IL App (5th) 170380; Shinall v. Carter , 2012 IL App (3d) 110302; Sadler v. Pulliam , 2022 IL App (5th) 220213; Janssen by Janssen v. Turner , 292 Ill. App. 3d 219 (1997); In re Marriage of Rogers , 213 Ill. 2d 129 (2004); In re Marriage of Pratt , 2014 IL App (1st) 130465; In re Marriage of Sinha , 2021 IL App (2d) 191129; In re Marriage of Selinger , 351 Ill. App. 3d 611 (2004); Suriano , 324 Ill. App. 3d 839 (2001); In re Marriage of Brackett , 309 Ill. App. 3d 329 (1999); In re Marriage of Anderson , 2015 IL App (3d) 140257 (no requirement to prove inability to pay).

Practical Implications

In parentage cases, always demand support retroactive at minimum to the date of service — it is mandatory, not discretionary; plead section 802(e) factors separately for pre-filing periods.

Where trial spans months or years, insist on updated financial affidavits and object if the court adopts stale temporary-order figures; cite Rogers and Pratt .

Build a record of outstanding fee amounts at or before the close of proofs; Selinger shows a court may deny contribution without a separate hearing if the record already contains fee amounts and finances.

Preserve the record when a judge promises a later fee hearing — that promise plus a summary denial is reversible error.

Check whether a successor trial judge is aware of pretrial judge's fee allocation orders; unexplained resets invite reversal.

Counterpoint for the party defending an allocation ruling: a bare statement that the court considered all statutory factors, plus GAL testimony itemizing each factor, is sufficient; no factor-by-factor findings required.

Raise every argument in the opening brief; reply-brief arguments are forfeited under Rule 341(h)(7).

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order and is not precedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1); use it as persuasive authority only. The statement that no separate evidentiary hearing is strictly required under section 503(j) is accurate but, as applied here, the reversal rests on the court's own representation that it would hold one. The suggestion that the circuit court may consider circumstances from the December 2021 separation forward is guidance on remand, not a holding that such support must be awarded.