In re Marriage of Wengielnik, 2019 IL App (3d) 180533-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Wengielnik, 2019 IL App (3d) 180533-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. Dec. 3, 2019) (Rule 23 order — non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Denise C. Wengielnik. Respondent-Appellant: Matthew S. Wengielnik III.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether an increase in parenting time (from 82 overnights to an alternating 130/148 schedule) alone constitutes a “substantial change in circumstances” warranting modification of child support under 750 ILCS 5/510.
- What evidence is required to meet the petitioner’s burden to modify child support when relying on parenting-time changes.
- Appropriate standard of review where the trial court finds no substantial change.

3. Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not err in granting a directed finding for Denise and concluding Matthew failed to prove a substantial change in circumstances to modify child support.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court emphasized established Illinois precedent: a petitioner seeking child-support modification generally must show an increase in the child’s needs and/or an increase in the noncustodial parent’s ability to pay since the last order. Case law (e.g., Adams, Turrell, Rushing) informs the statutory term “substantial change.”
- The panel rejected Matthew’s argument that a change in parenting time alone (and analogies to parenting‑time modification caselaw or statutory percentage tests under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(e)(2)) automatically satisfies the child‑support standard. The court distinguished the different factual inquiries for parenting‑time versus support modifications — they are not interchangeable.
- The record contained only Matthew’s calendar showing overnights; no financial evidence, testimony about increased costs, changes in child needs, or changes in either party’s income/expenses. The court held trial courts should not assume monetary effects from increased parenting time; such assumptions would force impermissible guesswork.
- Standard of review: where the trial court concludes no substantial change occurred, appellate review is for whether the finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- When seeking support modification based on parenting‑time changes, present concrete financial evidence: income/expense affidavits, child‑specific expenses, testimony tying additional overnights to measurable costs or to a change in ability to pay.
- Don’t rely on parenting‑time authorities or percentage changes alone; anticipate and quantify monetary impact.
- Consider drafting settlement/judgment language that anticipates alternating‑year schedules (e.g., formulas or crediting mechanisms) to avoid future evidentiary gaps.
- For appellees, move for directed findings if the mover presents no evidence of changed financial circumstances.