In re Marriage of McGrath, 2012 IL 112792

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of McGrath, 2012 IL 112792 (Ill. May 24, 2012).
- Mary Ellen McGrath (appellee) v. Martin Gibbons McGrath (appellant).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether periodic withdrawals from an unemployed parent’s savings account constitute “income” or “net income” for calculating child support under 750 ILCS 5/505(a).
- Proper statutory procedure when a trial court deviates from the child-support guidelines.

3) Holding/outcome
- Illinois Supreme Court held that regular withdrawals from the account owner’s own savings are not “income” for purposes of section 505 and therefore may not be included in the statutory “net income” calculation.
- The Appellate and trial court judgments were reversed and the cause remanded. The Court directed that if the trial court finds the guideline calculation cannot produce an appropriate support amount, it must state the guideline amount, explain reasons for deviation, and make an adjusted award consistent with 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(2).

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Statutory framework: the Act requires calculation of a minimum guideline amount (28% for two children) based on “net income,” defined as “the total of all income from all sources” with enumerated deductions (750 ILCS 5/505(a)).
- The Court relied on Rogers and ordinary dictionary meanings of “income” (a recurrent gain or benefit; money received from employment, investments, royalties, etc.). Money already owned and simply withdrawn from capital is not a recurrent gain or receipt and therefore does not fit the ordinary meaning of “income.”
- The trial court correctly followed the deviation procedure (calculated guideline amount and adjusted downward) but erred in its baseline by treating withdrawals of principal as passive net income.
- The decision does not resolve the separate appellate split concerning IRA or retirement-account disbursements — those issues were not before the Court.

5) Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Do not treat liquidation of a party’s capital (owner’s draws from savings/principal) as “income” when computing guideline support; distinguish capital principal from income-producing assets (interest, dividends, rent).
- If arguing for a deviation from guideline support, ensure the court first calculates the guideline amount and makes explicit written findings stating the guideline number and the factual/legal basis for variance, per 505(a)(2).
- Consider imputation doctrines where appropriate (voluntary unemployment, evasion, unreasonable refusal of employment), but don’t conflate asset-funded lifestyle with income absent statutory or factual basis.
- Where a party receives regular distributions from investment/retirement accounts, analyze and brief whether those distributions are income (case law split on IRAs/retirements).