In re Marriage of D'Ambrogio, 2019 IL App (1st) 180828-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of D’Ambrogio, No. 1-18-0828, 2019 IL App (1st) 180828-U (1st Dist. Sept. 30, 2019) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellant: John D’Ambrogio. Respondent-Appellee: Eileen D’Ambrogio.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred by dismissing without an evidentiary hearing John’s petition to review/modify child support.
- Whether the trial judge’s comments demonstrated bias warranting reassignment.
- Jurisdiction/ripeness of appeal from dismissal of post-dissolution child-support petitions.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of John’s petition because he failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances. The request for reassignment of the trial judge was denied. The court also found it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Procedural posture: John filed a post-dissolution petition (Jan. 2018) seeking review based on alleged income growth (from ~$171k in 2016 to ~$340k in 2017). The dissolution incorporated an MSA and a 2016 agreed order that set support at $3,300/month and limited further review absent gross income exceeding $215,000. Eileen moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 2-619.
- Pleading standard: The court treated the petition as legally deficient — mere allegation of increased income (and generalized claims of increased child expenses) without factual substantiation was insufficient to show a “substantial change in circumstances” warranting modification or an evidentiary hearing. Under dismissal practice, a modification petition must plead facts that, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief.
- Bias/reassignment: The trial judge’s colloquial remarks (including a comment that increased income might produce a lower guideline result under the “new statute”) did not amount to judicial bias requiring reassignment; appellant failed to show prejudice or conduct meeting reassignment standards.
- Jurisdiction: The order was final and appealable (postdissolution petitions resolved). A timely notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction over subsequent proceedings.

5) Practice implications for family-law practitioners
- When seeking modification of child support, plead and attach concrete, admissible factual support (pay stubs, tax returns, computation under applicable guidelines/statute) to establish a substantial change and threshold conditions in an agreed order.
- Anticipate dismissal motions (2-615/2-619) if pleadings are conclusory.
- Claims of judicial bias require objective evidence of prejudice beyond adverse or explanatory remarks.
- Ensure correct jurisdictional statements on appeal and file timely notices to preserve appellate review and divest trial court jurisdiction.