Chicago Divorce Lawyers & Attorneys

Although the general rule is there is no statutory or case authority to temporarily abate a portion of a support order that the supporting parent is without present means to pay, there are limits to that general rule; if a payor of child support sacrifices $10,000 of income this year in exchange for receiving $20,000 of income in future years, the court should not allow him to impose the burden of child support on the custodian based on his current sacrifice and ignore his future benefit (which may not be reachable for child support at the time it is received). The rejection of abatement is no longer applicable to situations which, by their very nature, are inherently temporary. In re Horn.
 The fact that the child’s custodial parent received public assistance was no reason to deprive the child of support from the noncustodial parent who certainly had the financial ability to meet the payments. People ex rel. Stokely v. Goodenow.
 For a case discussing valuation methodology used in assessing business assets to determine a parent’s ability to make court ordered child support payments. In re Perlmutter.
 Wife had monthly expenses of $875 a month and an assured income of $527 a month which evinced an inability by her to properly care for the children without additional support while the children were in her custody. In re Pitts.