In re Parentage of Thompson, 2019 IL App (1st) 180663-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Parentage of Thompson, 2019 IL App (1st) 180663-U (1st Div. Sept. 27, 2019) (Rule 23 order — nonprecedential). Petitioner-Appellee: Stephanie Golliday; Respondent-Appellant (pro se): Kenneth N. Thompson, Sr.; minor: Kenneth N. Thompson, Jr.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding respondent in indirect civil contempt for failure to pay court-ordered child support.
2. Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the contempt order (appealability under Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(5)).
3. Whether respondent could collaterally attack prior support/arrearage calculations (including a 1991 affidavit and withdrawal by the State’s Attorney) in the contempt proceeding.

- Holding / outcome
The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court. The contempt finding and remedial orders were upheld; the appellate court concluded it had jurisdiction under Rule 304(b)(5) because the contempt order imposed a penalty (stay of commitment with a purge amount). Respondent’s challenge failed to show abuse of discretion.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction: Rule 304(b)(5) covers contempt orders imposing fines or imprisonment; a stayed commitment with a purge amount sufficed to make the order appealable. Notices of appeal are to be liberally construed.
- Scope of review: The appeal was limited to the contempt adjudication and remedial orders, not to collateral challenges to decades‑old support orders where the time to appeal had passed. A contempt proceeding is not a vehicle to relitigate final support judgments that were not timely appealed.
- Merits: The trial court had evidence (tax returns, exhibits, testimony) showing respondent willfully failed to pay support — including after receiving a ~$75,000 settlement — and thus properly found contempt. The court fashioned a remedial plan: it waived support that accrued during 25 months of incarceration and substantial interest, calculated arrears (~$47,195 child support + ~$17,805 fees ≈ $65,000), set a monthly payment ($300), and stayed commitment pending purge (pay $900 by a date). Appellant did not meet his burden to show inability to pay or reversible error.

- Practice implications
- Contempt orders that include a stayed commitment or purge amount are appealable under Rule 304(b)(5).
- Parties should timely appeal or seek post‑judgment relief if disagreeing with support calculations; decades‑old orders are difficult to reopen in contempt proceedings.
- In enforcement proceedings, courts expect contemnors to produce contemporaneous financial proof (tax returns, settlements, payment records); mere assertions or late‑produced affidavits are often insufficient.
- Trial courts have discretion to adjust arrears for incarceration and to waive interest to create realistic payment plans; litigants should present clear evidence of incarceration periods and inability to pay when seeking relief.