In re Parentage of A.H., 2019 IL App (1st) 181590-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Parentage of A.H., 2019 IL App (1st) 181590-U (1st Dist. Mar. 29, 2019) (Rule 23 order). Petitioners/Appellees: Wipaporn T. (mother), individually and as parent/next friend of three minor children (A.H. et al.). Respondent/Appellant: Harlow H. (biological father).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the circuit court exceeded its authority in ordering Harlow to create and fund a trust (IOLTA) to secure interim and prospective attorney fees.
2. Whether the court erred in appointing a receiver (and expanding the receiver’s powers) without required statutory procedures (notice, full hearing, bond).
3. Whether a temporary restraining order was improperly converted into a preliminary injunction absent adequate pleading, evidentiary hearing, or required findings.
4. Whether the court effectively imposed a prejudgment attachment on Harlow’s income and assets beyond permissible bounds.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. It held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Harlow to fund the attorney-fee trust, appointing a receiver to effectuate that order (and granting defined powers), or entering the preliminary injunction limiting transfers of assets.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Procedural posture and emergency context mattered: after a foreign (Thailand) paternity/support judgment was given comity, petitioners alleged imminent harm to the children (risk of deportation from England and inability to support them), and the court prioritized the children’s best interests, education and healthcare.
- The trial court had earlier appointed a guardian ad litem and heard testimony; petitioners repeatedly sought interim fees and security to “level the playing field” against a wealthy litigant. Petitioners’ amended fee petition sought $1,750,000 to be placed in the GAL’s IOLTA account.
- The trial court warned Harlow, ordered payment, and when he did not comply, appointed a receiver and issued a TRO; Northern Trust ultimately transferred $1.85M (including a receiver retainer) and funds were placed in the GAL’s IOLTA account. The receiver’s collection activity was later stayed while the TRO/preliminary injunction remained in place.
- The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and applied Foutch (the appellant bears the burden of a complete record). It found no reversible error in the court’s equitable use of power to secure attorney fees and protect the children pending resolution.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Courts may use equitable powers to require security for interim attorney fees (including trust/IOLTA funding) where a party’s resources are used as litigation leverage and child welfare is implicated—be prepared to justify amount and necessity.
- When opposing such relief, ensure the appellate record is complete (Foutch consequences).
- Receivers and TROs/preliminary injunctions remain tools to preserve assets; noncompliance with court-ordered security can prompt prompt receiver appointment and bank transfers.
- Early appointment of a GAL and documenting child-safety/emergency facts strengthens requests for expedited relief and interim funding.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 (non-precedential) appellate disposition; persuasive but not binding authority.