In re Marriage of Stine, 2023 IL App (4th) 220519

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Stine, 2023 IL App (4th) 220519 (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist. May 23, 2023).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Shelli D. Stine. Respondent-Appellant: William G. Stine.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s factual finding that the custodial spouse was “unable to work” because of caregiving obligations for a profoundly disabled child was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether income could properly be imputed to the custodial spouse under the factors of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/504(a)) where a parent cared full‑time for an adult child with severe disabilities.
- Standard of review for maintenance determinations (abuse of discretion) and factual findings (manifest weight).

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court’s finding that Shelli was unable to obtain income because of her caregiving responsibilities was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impute income and in awarding maintenance of $776.92/month for seven years (a downward deviation from statutory guideline duration).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court applied §504(a) factors, including present/future earning capacity and impairment of earning capacity from domestic duties. Income may be imputed only when unemployment is voluntary, undertaken to evade support, or when a party unreasonably refuses employment.
- Factual record supported the trial court’s conclusion: the child had profound disabilities (multiple medical conditions, daily seizures, nonverbal, needs constant supervision), required multiple weekly medical trips, specialized equipment and extensive daily assistance (about 4 hours to prepare for appointments plus 7–15 hours weekly on paperwork), and available nursing assistance was limited by staffing and scope-of-duty constraints.
- Evidence as to nursing‑home placement or substitutable care was limited and both parents agreed care would not be equivalent there. The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility assessments (including findings concerning father’s employment history and candor) and found the opposite conclusion not clearly evident.

5. Practice implications
- Caregiving for a profoundly disabled child (even an emancipated adult) can justify refusing to impute income and support maintenance awards; courts will consider realistic availability and adequacy of substitute care, staffing limits, and documented caregiving time.
- Develop the evidentiary record: detailed time-use testimony, medical records, care plans, nursing availability and limits, staffing shortages, costs/quality comparisons for institutional care, and credibility points on the other party’s employment choices.
- If arguing imputation, present concrete evidence that alternative care would allow employment (reliable, skilled caregivers; comparable institutional care) and address scope-of-duty limits for aides. Trial courts’ detailed memorandum opinions aid appellate review—seek explicit findings on credibility and the §504 factors.