In re Marriage of Monsen, 2024 IL App (1st) 231011-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Monsen, 2024 IL App (1st) 231011‑U (1st Dist. Mar. 29, 2024) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellant: Tara Monsen. Respondent‑Appellee: Timothy Monsen.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court was required to recite specific statutory subsections (750 ILCS 5/602.5(c), 602.7(b)) in its written allocation of parental responsibilities.
- Whether the trial court’s zero child‑support award (a deviation from the statutory guidelines) required written findings specifying (a) reasons for the deviation and (b) the presumed guideline amount without deviation (750 ILCS 5/505(a)(2), (a)(3.4)).

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed in part and vacated in part. The allocation of parental responsibilities was upheld; the child‑support provision was vacated and remanded for compliance with statutory findings requirements. Case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on child support.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Allocation of parental responsibilities: The court held there is no requirement that a trial court’s written judgment recite each statutory factor or cite each subsection considered. A comprehensive written order that shows the court considered pertinent statutes and case law is sufficient; courts are presumed to know and apply governing law (citing In re Marriage of Katsap; In re Alexander R.).
- Child support: The court found the trial court deviated from the child‑support guidelines by awarding zero support but failed to make the statutorily required written findings explaining the deviation and stating the presumed guideline amount without deviation. Because 750 ILCS 5/505 mandates written findings for any deviation, the child‑support judgment was vacated and remanded (citing Vance; In re Marriage of Ash & Matschke).

5) Practice implications (for counsel and courts)
- Trial counsel should secure specific, written findings when a court intends to deviate from guideline child support: state the presumed guideline amount and articulate the reasons for deviation on the record and in the written order.
- Courts need not mechanically cite every statutory subsection when allocating parental responsibilities, but orders should clearly reflect consideration of relevant statutory factors.
- In shared‑custody scenarios, a zero support order still constitutes a deviation and triggers the §505(a)(3.4) finding requirement.
- Preserve the record: use a court reporter and request explicit findings at trial to avoid remand and facilitate appellate review.
- Reminder: this is a Rule 23 (nonprecedential) decision and has limited precedential effect.