In re Parentage of N.G., 2019 IL App (2d) 180657-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of N.G., No. 2-18-0657 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., May 31, 2019) (Rule 23 order — non‑precedential).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Sarita Gilligan (mother). Respondent/Appellant: Thomas Sawczuk (father).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in (a) determining father’s annual income for purposes of awarding contribution to undergraduate college expenses under 750 ILCS 5/513, (b) considering the income/resources of father’s new spouse when allocating educational costs, and (c) awarding mother attorney fees.
- Whether the allocation/order was against the manifest weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s order requiring father to contribute toward the daughter’s college expenses (father $15,000/year; mother $3,000/year), to continue health insurance and half uncovered medical costs, and to pay $3,500 of mother’s attorney fees.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Income determination: The trial court’s finding of father’s prorated annual income ($22,000) was supported by his testimony and financial affidavit; reviewed under the manifest‑weight standard and not reversed.
- Consideration of spouse’s income: Section 513 permits consideration of the “financial resources of both parties.” The court may consider property or income available to a parent through a new spouse to assess the parent’s ability to pay (citing Drysch and Cianchetti principles). Here the trial court considered household resources only as they could free or reallocate father’s available funds; that was not error.
- Allocation and reasonableness: The educational award was a discretionary exercise; the court found father had greater ability to contribute (past higher earnings, available savings and retirement‑account liquidity). The award was modest relative to prior child‑support obligations and not an abuse of discretion.
- Attorney fees: Fee contribution was proper where father had ability to pay; appellate review under abuse‑of‑discretion.
- Custodial account note: Trial court expressed concern that father deposited inheritance into an IUTMA for the child then used funds for support, suggesting potential breach of fiduciary duty (issue noted but not litigated on appeal).
- Some arguments forfeited for lack of authority (appellate briefing deficiencies).

5) Practice implications (concise)
- When litigating §513 contribution claims expect courts to examine total household resources, including a parent’s ability to draw on spousal support or household income to fund education.
- Self‑employment and variable income require clear, contemporaneous evidence (pro rata calculations, profit/loss statements, tax returns) to rebut prorated income findings.
- Preserve objections with authority — failure to cite legal support risks forfeiture.
- Raise custodial‑account misuse early; courts may flag potential fiduciary breaches and consider those funds as child property.
- Fee motions remain viable where one parent demonstrably has greater ability to bear litigation costs.