In re parentage of D.O.
Full Case Summary
Case
In re Parentage of D.O. & P.O., 2025 IL App (3d) 240645‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. Oct. 15, 2025). Order by Justice Holdridge; Presiding Justice Brennan and Justice Hettel concur. Filed under Illinois Sup. Ct. R. 23 (nonprecedential).
Parties & Procedural Posture
Petitioner‑Appellee: Christie Capalety. Respondent‑Appellant: Dominic O’Neill. Capalety petitioned (Sept. 21, 2022) for child support and contribution to educational/extracurricular expenses for the parties’ two children for 2022–2024. After a June 17, 2024 hearing (by then both children were emancipated), the circuit court calculated O’Neill’s income from bank records and other evidence, set a child‑support arrearage, and allocated shared hockey expenses. O’Neill moved to reconsider after filing 2022–2023 tax returns; the court denied the motion and he appealed.
Facts & Hearing Evidence
- Capalety testified she earns $140,000/year as a property manager, described substantial hockey-related costs (travel, equipment, club fees), and submitted pay records and a financial disclosure. - O’Neill, a self‑employed contractor, had not filed tax returns for about ten years (later filed 2022–2023 returns post‑judgment). On his affidavit he listed gross receipts of roughly $119,000 (2022) and $118,000 (2023); he also testified to charging $65/hour, received reimbursements (meals, company car), commingled accounts, and produced no balance sheets, tax returns, or P&L statements at trial. He gave inconsistent testimony about who paid hockey costs and estimated his own income at $42,000 in one instance.Trial Court Findings
- The court found O’Neill’s income testimony not credible, treated missing evidence under his control as adverse, and calculated child‑support income by averaging extrapolated bank deposits and his testified hourly wage, arriving at annual income of $173,150.02. - It found Capalety’s base income of $140,000 (with additional 2023 income from a stock sale and settlement). - The court found Capalety paid approximately $24,068 in hockey expenses for 2022–2024 and ordered O’Neill to pay half. The court directed the parties to prepare child‑support calculations consistent with these findings.Appellate Issues & Procedural Defects
- O’Neill (pro se) challenged the income calculation and the allocation of hockey expenses. Capalety moved to strike his brief and dismiss for noncompliance with Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h), asserting the appellant failed to include exhibits (notably the bank statements the trial court used) in the appellate record. Although pro se, O’Neill is held to the same appellate rules; nevertheless the appellate court reviewed the record.Law & Appellate Analysis
- Standard: child‑support determinations and arrearages reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings are reversed only if against the manifest weight of the evidence. Where the appellate record is incomplete, courts presume the trial court acted correctly and may draw reasonable inferences for income where direct proof is lacking. Income for child support may include non‑taxable or nontraditional benefits. - Because O’Neill failed to produce reliable income records and commingled accounts, the trial court permissibly drew adverse inferences and relied on bank deposits and his hourly rate to calculate income. The court also reasonably allocated hockey expenses and accounted for payments O’Neill claimed. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s methods or conclusions.Disposition
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Du Page County is affirmed.
Ask AI About This Case
Have a specific question about In re parentage of D.O.? Ask our AI assistant below.