In re Marriage of Tobin, 2019 IL App (2d) 180576-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Tobin, 2019 IL App (2d) 180576-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Order filed July 22, 2019) (Sup. Ct. R. 23 order — not precedent except as allowed). Petitioner-Appellee: Violeta Cristea (formerly Tobin). Respondent-Appellant: Brian Tobin.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the petitioner established a "substantial change in circumstances" warranting modification (reduction) of an existing child-support obligation.
2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in reducing child support to zero based principally on petitioner’s testimony of debilitating medical conditions.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing petitioner’s child-support obligation to zero because petitioner’s uncontroverted testimony that serious health problems rendered her unemployable constituted a substantial change in circumstances.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Modification standard: A party seeking modification bears the burden to show a substantial change in circumstances; appellate review is for abuse of discretion and factual findings are reversed only if against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Evidence: Petitioner (pro se) testified she suffers from fibromyalgia, PTSD, migraines and related treatments and is effectively unable to obtain/keep gainful employment; maintenance had ended and she worked only limited low‑wage, part‑time hours. Respondent’s challenge was limited to assertions that petitioner exaggerated or fabricated her condition; he presented no contradictory medical or vocational evidence.
- Credibility and deference: The trial court, as factfinder, was entitled to credit petitioner’s testimony and find unemployability; given those findings, reducing child support to zero was within the court’s discretion. The court noted respondent could later seek an increase if petitioner’s health improved.

- Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Burden and proof: Movants must show substantial change; credible testimonial evidence of debilitating medical conditions can suffice when unrefuted, but documentary (medical, vocational) proof strengthens the motion.
- Defense strategy: To prevent or overturn a zero reduction, present contemporaneous medical records, functional capacity/vocational assessments, income-earning history, or surveillance/evidence of work activity. Bare allegations of fabrication are weak without corroboration.
- Litigation posture: Trial courts receive deference on credibility findings; appellate reversal is unlikely absent clear countervailing evidence.
- Remedy planning: If support is reduced to zero, preserve grounds and procedures to seek reinstatement/increase should the obligor’s financial/health status change.