Chicago Child Visitation Lawyer

It was unnecessary for the court to make any findings as to matters on the economic circumstances of the parties since the date the judgment of dissolution was entered where the record reflected that following the remand order no extraordinary circumstances had arisen.  In re Jones
Failure to Reserve Right to Modification
 A court can modify a maintenance order when the order sought to be modified does not expressly reserve the right of the court to review that order at some future time.  In re Carpel
 The Illinois General Assembly, in moving the “due notice” phrase from one location to another, changed the law as it had been previously interpreted by this state’s judiciary, the filing date of the modification petition is no longer the earliest point to which a retroactive modification of maintenance or support payments may be ordered; rather, consistent with the Federal mandate, the earliest point to which retroactive modification of maintenance or support payments may be ordered is the date on which the non-moving party receives “due notice” from the moving party of the filing of the modification petition.  In re Hawking
Foreign Court’s Modification
 One state must recognize a sister state’s judgment to the degree that it is non-modifiable, and the second forum must apply the first forum’s law to determine the extent of modification; thus, to determine the degree to which an Illinois decree is modifiable, the foreign court should refer to this section.  Sullivan v. Sullivan
Guardian and Litem
___Abuse of Discretion
 An appointment of a guardian ad litem for a child who was not a party to modification of child support action and without an evidentiary showing of the need for a guardian was an abuse of the trial court’s discretionary power.  Robin v. Robin
Indefinite Maintenance
 Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding indefinite maintenance where trial court concluded that it was unlikely wife would be to increase her income to a level approaching her husband’s.  In re Minear

Womens Divorce Lawyers

 Reduction of income was the type of substantial change in circumstances contemplated by subsection (a) and thus it was error for the trial court to decline to modify in maintenance award.  In re Izzo
 Because the terms of the judgment did not incorporate the terms of a settlement agreement pursuant to 75 ILCS 5/502 (f), the court had power to modify the maintenance award.  In re Bryant
 Modification of maintenance was appropriate where the husband presented evidence that he had chosen to cease working upon the advice of his physician and following heart pains significant enough to cause his hospitalization and his business required work seven days a week.  In re Coloumbo
 Although the ancillary order limited termination of maintenance to the conditions therefore in this section, it made no express reference to any conditions precluding modification as to the amount of maintenance and, therefore, did not preclude modification.  In re Scott
 Modification of maintenance provisions of a 1975 settlement agreement was allowed using the standards of this section, even though enacted after 1975.  Ingrassia v. Ingrassia.
 Where an option concerning disposition of a home required respondent to pay monthly rent to petitioner, the award was a form of maintenance which the court could not allow where petitioner was cohabiting with another.  In re Combs

Womens Divorce Lawyers