In the Court of Appeals of the State of Illinois Melissa Porter vs Research Paper

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Illinois Melissa Porter vs John Straub - Research Paper Example On November 14, 2011, the District Court ruled in her favor. There was no Motion to Modify Child Support filed by either party. However, the District Court Judge made an Order of Child Support. Pursuant to that Order, the Judge allowed for a deviation from the child support guidelines to accommodate Mr. Straub’s new child, born of his current marriage. There is no Order of Support for that child. There was nothing in the Order addressing unpaid support. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS In October 2011, Melissa Porter sought to regain custody of her son, David, from the child’s father, John Straub. There was an order of Paternity, Custody and Support entered in a Florida court in 2008. Pursuant to that Order, Mr. Straub was ordered to pay $100 per month in child support. His payment history was poor and he was in arrears when Ms. Porter found it necessary to join the Army Reserves to supplement her income in order to properly care for the child. Ms. Porter and Mr. Straub had a ver bal agreement that he would care for his son while Ms. Porter completed Basic Training in the Army Reserves. Mr. Straub was ten months in arrears in his child support obligation at the time he began caring for his son in August 2010. Ms. Porter was injured in a training accident while on active duty and spent several months recovering. Upon her return home, she sought the return of the child and Mr. Straub refused. Mr. Straub filed for custody in the Illinois courts. That filing resulted in an Order granting custody to Mr. Straub. Ms. Porter filed for an Order to Vacate that finding and the District Court for Cook County found in her favor, returning her son to her. During the course of those proceedings, the District Court made a support order, allowing a 20% deduction from the Illinois child support guideline amount to accommodate Mr. Straub’s new child of his current marriage. There was no provision for paying the arrearage. There was no inclusion for the income of Mr. Str aub’s current spouse when calculating the total net income upon which the support amount should be based, nor was there a finding on the record of the guideline amount upon which the deduction would be based. When Ms. Porter objected, the judge instructed the parties to â€Å"take it up on appeal.† Appellant now appeals from the Order Modifying Support. ARGUMENT The facts of the case are not in dispute. All parties were present when the District Court judge modified the child support order to accommodate Mr. Straub’s parental obligation to his new child of his current marriage. The judge deducted 20% from the guideline amount without stating an initial child support guideline amount and the factors at law that allowed him to vary from the statutory guidelines. I. Standard of Review Of the issue presented here on appeal, the standard of review is de novo because there is no dispute as to the facts and the issue is a question of law. In re Marriage of Baumgartner, 393 Ill. App. 3d 297; 912 N.E.2d 783 (2009). See also Einstein v. Nijim, 358 Ill. App. 3d 263, 831 N.E.2d 50 (2005). A judgment is contrary to law â€Å"when an opposite conclusion is apparent or when findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence.†