In re Marriage of Popa, 2013 IL App (1st) 130818

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Popa, 2013 IL App (1st) 130818 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Aug. 23, 2013).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Ciprian Popa. Respondent/Appellant: Adriana Garcia.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion under section 509 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/509) by directing the noncustodial parent to pay child support into a trust for the children (with the noncustodial parent named trustee) and prohibiting withdrawals without court approval.
- Whether such an order impermissibly conditions or suspends child support on the custodial parent’s compliance with visitation or custody orders.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not exceed its authority or abuse its discretion in creating the trust to secure child support payments for the benefit of the minor children.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: factual findings reviewed for manifest weight; modification/remedy decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The court acknowledged precedent recognizing that extreme, unusual custodial-parent conduct can justify suspension or modification of support (citing Cooper v. Cooper), but emphasized that routine visitation breaches alone do not excuse support.
- The trial court found egregious facts: respondent removed the children to Uruguay in violation of court orders, remained outside the court’s jurisdiction for months, and the children (including a daughter with special needs treated in Illinois) potentially lacked needed medical oversight. The noncustodial parent expressed unwillingness to continue payments that might facilitate or be used to maintain the custodial parent’s removal of the children.
- Given those circumstances, the trust (with court-ordered withdrawal approval) was an appropriate, narrowly tailored remedy to protect the children’s interests and prevent misuse of support funds. The appellate court found the remedy within the court’s discretionary authority under section 509.

5) Practice implications
- Trial courts have broad discretion under section 509 to craft remedies (including trust/escrow mechanisms) to protect children’s interests where custodial-parent conduct is egregious or jurisdictional removal impairs access to necessary care.
- Ordinary visitation violations will not justify withholding or suspending support; however, removal from jurisdiction or other extreme conduct can support nontraditional remedies.
- Attorneys should promptly document medical needs, evidence of removal/abduction, and risk of misuse of funds when seeking enforcement remedies (trusts, escrow, contempt, return orders).
- Noncustodial parents should avoid unilateral withholding of support; seek court orders (abatement, escrow, trust) instead. Custodial parents should seek court permission before international travel and be prepared to rebut claims of misuse of support.