In re Parentage of Thompson, 2023 IL App (1st) 221149-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of Thompson, No. 1-22-1149, 2023 IL App (1st) 221149-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., July 14, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1)).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Stephanie Golliday. Respondent/Appellant: Kenneth N. Thompson Sr. (father of minor Kenneth N. Thompson Jr.).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in adjudicating respondent in indirect civil contempt for failure to pay child support arrearages under prior support orders (Mar. 7, 2018 and Mar. 3, 2021).
- Whether respondent met his burden to show non-willfulness or a valid excuse (e.g., disability, unemployment, COVID-related caregiving) for nonpayment.
- Whether the appellate record supported reversal.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s adjudications of indirect civil contempt. Appellant failed to show abuse of discretion.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Civil contempt: failure to make court-ordered support creates prima facie evidence of contempt; the alleged contemnor bears the burden to show non-willfulness or a valid excuse. (Citing Sharp, Nettleton, Betts)
- Standard of review: contempt findings reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal only if no reasonable person would take the trial court’s view.
- Record deficiency dispositive: appellant provided no hearing transcript or bystander’s report to challenge the factual findings. Under Foutch, an incomplete record requires presuming the trial court’s rulings had a sufficient factual basis. That presumption was outcome-determinative here.
- Procedural notes from the record: long history (1991 paternity/support order; 1999 arrearage judgment; 2018 contempt and reduction to a $65,000 figure with $300/month plan; 2021 reduction to $100/month going forward). Trial court did not make the 2021 modification retroactive to relieve past nonpayment; appellant’s unilateral reduced payments did not satisfy the burden at the contempt hearing (no transcript to show otherwise).

5. Practice implications
- Preserve the record. To overturn contempt findings based on claimed inability to pay, produce a complete hearing transcript or bystander’s report and contemporaneous financial evidence. Foutch will otherwise defeat appellate challenges.
- Prove inability to pay at the contempt hearing. Burden rests on alleged contemnor; bring documentary proof (disability determinations, SSA/SSI awards, unemployment, bank/pay statements) and request explicit judicial findings on ability to pay and retroactivity if relief is sought.
- Use precise litigation strategy on modifications: obtain written, retroactive modification or temporary relief from the court—not unilateral reductions—to avoid contempt exposure.
- Beware form contempt orders. Insist on specific findings (willfulness, available assets, efforts to pay) in the court’s adjudication to preserve appellate issues.
- Jurisdictional note: appeal from contempt order lies under Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(5).