In re Marriage of Kincaid, 2012 IL App (3d) 110511

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kincaid, 2012 IL App (3d) 110511 (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., July 3, 2012).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Lynne P. Kincaid. Respondent-Appellant: Brian R. Kincaid.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a trial court may increase an unallocated family support award based on a payor’s gross income, or whether the court must determine net income first.
- Whether removal of the children to Austin, Texas, was in the children’s best interests.
- Whether the payor was required to pay half of the children’s counseling expenses.

3) Holding / outcome
- Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s orders granting Lynne’s petition to remove the children to Texas and ordering Brian to pay half of the counseling bills.
- The appellate court reversed the portion increasing Brian’s unallocated family support (from $5,500 to $9,800) because the trial court based the increase on gross income; remanded for determination based on net income. Overall: affirmed in part, reversed in part, cause remanded.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Unallocated family support is functionally both child support and maintenance. Because child support determinations under 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(1) require calculation of the payor’s net income, a court modifying unallocated support that includes child support must first determine net income (citing In re Marriage of Karonis and the statutory definition of “net income” at 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3)).
- Although section 504 (maintenance) references the parties’ “income,” it does not displace the specific net-income requirement for child support under section 505. Therefore, basing an unallocated award solely on gross earnings was reversible error.
- On removal and counseling: the trial court permissibly found the move served the children’s best interests (improved parental income, family support network, educational parity, children’s preferences) and that continuing with the existing counselor was not a “major decision” under the judgment; hence allocation of counseling costs equally was appropriate.

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- When seeking or defending modification of unallocated support, develop and introduce full net-income proof (tax returns, business expenses, payroll taxes, insurable deductions, health premiums, depreciation, etc.). Gross-income evidence alone is insufficient where child support components exist.
- Anticipate detailed evidence on self‑employment deductions for high‑income payors; be prepared to litigate what constitutes reasonable and necessary income‑producing expenses.
- For removal motions, assemble proof on best‑interest factors: career, financial stability, extended family support, school comparisons, children’s preferences, and proposed visitation logistics (including travel costs).
- For disputes over therapy/health expenses, analyze the marital settlement/judgment language (major decision vs routine health expense) and preserve evidence on necessity and prior practice.