White v. White
Nonprecedential Rule 23(b) written order.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it was entered on or after January 1, 2021, it may be cited for persuasive purposes under Rule 23(e)(1), but it is not binding precedent.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
In White v. White , the Fifth District affirmed a Fayette County child support order that calculated support in four separate time periods reflecting the parenting arrangement actually in effect during each period. The court also upheld the trial court's use of the mother's own sworn financial affidavit to set her income and its use of the father's 2024 average monthly income (rather than projecting temporary mandatory overtime) for prospective support.
Key Facts
Parties divorced in 2007; one biological child, A.W., born after the divorce.
Toby filed a petition to modify parental allocation and support on February 27, 2024, alleging a substantial change of circumstances.
An April 30, 2024, agreed temporary order had A.W. residing with Toby through the school year, with majority parenting time returning to Christine on May 24, 2024.
Christine's November 1, 2024, financial affidavit reported $6,100/month self-employment income from C & G Cleaning Company plus $700/month rental income — $6,800 gross monthly.
Her 2024 tax return showed one Schedule C with $67,957 gross receipts, a second Schedule C with $2,364, and Schedule E rental income of $8,400; she proposed using only $67,957 ($5,663.08/month).
Toby's 2024 gross monthly average was $4,730; mandatory overtime raised it to $6,635 through April 22, 2025; afterward it fell to $3,840.81.
A May 20, 2025, agreed parenting plan gave Christine majority parenting time, leaving only support and tax exemptions for the court.
The trial court found Christine owed $3,748.99 net (retroactive support plus Toby's overpayment), and set Toby's prospective obligation at $150.92/week.
Procedural History
Fayette County circuit court (Nos. 06-D-117, 24-FA-4, Judge Joshua C. Morrison) entered a child support order June 10, 2025, after written arguments. Christine's July 11, 2025, motion to reconsider was denied October 21, 2025. She appealed November 20, 2025; appeals Nos. 5-26-0049 and 5-26-0152 were consolidated in the Fifth District.
Holdings
The trial court did not err in calculating support according to the parenting arrangement in effect during each relevant period, beginning with the date the petition to modify was filed, consistent with section 510(a); statutory-interpretation issues reviewed de novo .
Because the court never applied the shared-parenting provision of section 505(a)(3.8), Christine's argument that Toby had only 136 overnights in 2024 (below the 146-overnight threshold) showed no error.
The court's reference to "equity" in selecting Toby's income figure was not a guideline deviation, so written findings under section 505(a)(3.4) were unnecessary.
No abuse of discretion in using Christine's sworn financial affidavit ($6,800/month) over her selective tax-return figure, or in using Toby's 2024 average rather than projecting temporary overtime.
Legal Principles
750 ILCS 5/505(a)(1.5) (West 2024) — four-step basic support calculation; In re Marriage of Gabriel , 2020 IL App (1st) 182710, ¶¶ 54, 56.
750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.8) (West 2024) — shared-parenting formula applies only when each parent has 146+ overnights per year.
750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.4) (West 2024) — written findings required only for an actual deviation from guidelines.
750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.1) (West 2024) — net business income is gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary business expenses.
750 ILCS 5/510(a) — modification permitted as to installments accruing after notice of filing.
Taxable income is not synonymous with support income: Vance v. Joyner , 2019 IL App (4th) 190136, ¶ 55.
Income averaging approved for fluctuating income, with discretion to select the averaging period: In re Marriage of Garrett , 336 Ill. App. 3d 1018, 1025-26 (2003).
De novo review of section 505 interpretation: In re Marriage of McGrath , 2012 IL 112792, ¶ 10; In re Marriage of Ruvola , 2017 IL App (2d) 160737, ¶ 18.
Practical Implications
When parenting time shifts mid-case, expect and request period-by-period support calculations with offsets rather than one blended figure.
Update or amend financial affidavits. The court held the affiant to her own sworn numbers and faulted her for never amending them.
A cherry-picked Schedule C figure will not displace an affidavit; be prepared to prove all income from all sources, including additional Schedule C receipts and Schedule E rental income, and to document ordinary and necessary business expenses under section 505(a)(3.1).
Temporary, documented overtime can be captured for the period earned without being projected forward — useful for either side depending on timing.
Counterargument to anticipate: a court's use of the word "equitable" does not alone trigger section 505(a)(3.4) findings; the question is whether a guideline amount was computed and then departed from.
Support may be modified back to the date of notice of filing under section 510(a), so filing date drives the first calculation period.
Limitations/Caveats
This is a Rule 23 order and is not precedent except as permitted by Rule 23(e)(1). The binding analysis is confined to the record presented; the discussion of income averaging under Garrett and the tax-income distinction under Vance is applied narrowly to these facts. The court expressly noted the record did not show reliance on section 505(a)(3.8), so the opinion does not resolve how overnights should be counted in a true shared-parenting case.
Overview
In White v. White , the Fifth District affirmed a Fayette County child support order that calculated support in four separate time periods reflecting the parenting arrangement actually in effect during each period. The court also upheld the trial court's use of the mother's own sworn financial affidavit to set her income and its use of the father's 2024 average monthly income (rather than projecting temporary mandatory overtime) for prospective support.
Key Facts
Parties divorced in 2007; one biological child, A.W., born after the divorce.
Toby filed a petition to modify parental allocation and support on February 27, 2024, alleging a substantial change of circumstances.
An April 30, 2024, agreed temporary order had A.W. residing with Toby through the school year, with majority parenting time returning to Christine on May 24, 2024.
Christine's November 1, 2024, financial affidavit reported $6,100/month self-employment income from C & G Cleaning Company plus $700/month rental income — $6,800 gross monthly.
Her 2024 tax return showed one Schedule C with $67,957 gross receipts, a second Schedule C with $2,364, and Schedule E rental income of $8,400; she proposed using only $67,957 ($5,663.08/month).
Toby's 2024 gross monthly average was $4,730; mandatory overtime raised it to $6,635 through April 22, 2025; afterward it fell to $3,840.81.
A May 20, 2025, agreed parenting plan gave Christine majority parenting time, leaving only support and tax exemptions for the court.
The trial court found Christine owed $3,748.99 net (retroactive support plus Toby's overpayment), and set Toby's prospective obligation at $150.92/week.
Procedural History
Fayette County circuit court (Nos. 06-D-117, 24-FA-4, Judge Joshua C. Morrison) entered a child support order June 10, 2025, after written arguments. Christine's July 11, 2025, motion to reconsider was denied October 21, 2025. She appealed November 20, 2025; appeals Nos. 5-26-0049 and 5-26-0152 were consolidated in the Fifth District.
Holdings
The trial court did not err in calculating support according to the parenting arrangement in effect during each relevant period, beginning with the date the petition to modify was filed, consistent with section 510(a); statutory-interpretation issues reviewed de novo .
Because the court never applied the shared-parenting provision of section 505(a)(3.8), Christine's argument that Toby had only 136 overnights in 2024 (below the 146-overnight threshold) showed no error.
The court's reference to "equity" in selecting Toby's income figure was not a guideline deviation, so written findings under section 505(a)(3.4) were unnecessary.
No abuse of discretion in using Christine's sworn financial affidavit ($6,800/month) over her selective tax-return figure, or in using Toby's 2024 average rather than projecting temporary overtime.
Legal Principles
750 ILCS 5/505(a)(1.5) (West 2024) — four-step basic support calculation; In re Marriage of Gabriel , 2020 IL App (1st) 182710, ¶¶ 54, 56.
750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.8) (West 2024) — shared-parenting formula applies only when each parent has 146+ overnights per year.
750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.4) (West 2024) — written findings required only for an actual deviation from guidelines.
750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.1) (West 2024) — net business income is gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary business expenses.
750 ILCS 5/510(a) — modification permitted as to installments accruing after notice of filing.
Taxable income is not synonymous with support income: Vance v. Joyner , 2019 IL App (4th) 190136, ¶ 55.
Income averaging approved for fluctuating income, with discretion to select the averaging period: In re Marriage of Garrett , 336 Ill. App. 3d 1018, 1025-26 (2003).
De novo review of section 505 interpretation: In re Marriage of McGrath , 2012 IL 112792, ¶ 10; In re Marriage of Ruvola , 2017 IL App (2d) 160737, ¶ 18.
Practical Implications
When parenting time shifts mid-case, expect and request period-by-period support calculations with offsets rather than one blended figure.
Update or amend financial affidavits. The court held the affiant to her own sworn numbers and faulted her for never amending them.
A cherry-picked Schedule C figure will not displace an affidavit; be prepared to prove all income from all sources, including additional Schedule C receipts and Schedule E rental income, and to document ordinary and necessary business expenses under section 505(a)(3.1).
Temporary, documented overtime can be captured for the period earned without being projected forward — useful for either side depending on timing.
Counterargument to anticipate: a court's use of the word "equitable" does not alone trigger section 505(a)(3.4) findings; the question is whether a guideline amount was computed and then departed from.
Support may be modified back to the date of notice of filing under section 510(a), so filing date drives the first calculation period.
Limitations/Caveats
This is a Rule 23 order and is not precedent except as permitted by Rule 23(e)(1). The binding analysis is confined to the record presented; the discussion of income averaging under Garrett and the tax-income distinction under Vance is applied narrowly to these facts. The court expressly noted the record did not show reliance on section 505(a)(3.8), so the opinion does not resolve how overnights should be counted in a true shared-parenting case.
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 Your Situation?
Start with a conflict-check intake. If cleared, our office will contact you about next steps.
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.