|
IICLE Family Law Flash Points
September
2010
Authored by:
Donald C. Schiller and Michelle A. Lawless
1. Blue Cross is a “Payor” for payments to a physician under Withholding Act. Mother filed suit against Blue Cross Blue Shield after the insurance company refused to comply with a Notice to Withhold, which required it to withhold support from weekly payments made to a physician obligor, who was a Blue Cross preferred provider. The insurance company moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that it did not pay “income” to the payor and the trial court granted the motion. The Appellate Court reversed and noted that because the physician was a sole proprietor, and because the weekly payments made by Blue Cross were deposited into his personal checking account, that Blue Cross was in fact a “payor” and that the sole proprietorship was in fact an “individual” as defined under the Act. The Appellate Court also stated that Blue Cross should have either complied with the Notice or filed a declaratory judgment action, and indicated that on remand Blue Cross should be subject to the mandatory penalties for violating the Act. In re the Marriage of Vaughn v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, 2010 WL 3218878.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2010/1stDistrict/August/1091789.pdf
2. Petition for Contribution to College Expenses held to be in the Nature of Child Support Modification Petition. Mother, who had sole custody of the parties’ three children, filed a Petition for Contribution for retroactive and current college expenses. The parties’ judgment for dissolution of marriage was silent as to each of their respective obligations. At hearing, the trial court ordered father to contribute to amounts incurred prior to the date that mother had filed her Petition, as well as amounts incurred after the filing. The Appellate Court reversed and held that, similar to a child support modification petition, Section 510 of the IMDMA requires that the only amounts for which father could be obligated to contribute to are those which were incurred subsequent to the filing of the mother’s petition. In ruling, the Appellate Court distinguished the case of In re the Marriage of Bennett from the one at bar and stated that in Bennett, the educational expenses subject to allocation between the parties had occurred while the parties were still married. In re the Marriage of Peterson.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2010/1stDistrict/July/1082643.pdf
3. DNA Testing Improper after Court has made a Judicial Determination Resolving Paternity. The trial court denied Respondent’s request for a DNA test on the basis that his petition was not timely because a 2006 agreed parentage order established the Respondent as the child’s father. While Section 11(a) of the Parentage Act mandates a DNA test if one of the parties requests one in matters where paternity is unresolved, in this case the paternity of the child was not at issue since the parties had previously signed an agreed order declaring the Respondent to be the child’s father. Accordingly, the Respondent had no right to DNA testing. Guadalupe Galvez v. Jose Rentas.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2010/1stDistrict/August/1092231.pdf
4. Mental Heath and Developmental Disabilities Code and Mental Heath and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act Amended. Two major amendments have taken effect in the aforementioned Acts regarding an attorney’s ability to obtain a patient’s mental health records. The first is that a judge can not issue an order releasing mental health records unless the patient and provider are given written notice of the motion requesting these records. Second, each subpoena must include notice that no persona shall comply with subpoena unless accompanied by a written order authorizing such a subpoena. Public Act 96-1399.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/96/096-1399.htm
5. Orders of Protection Must be Entered in LEADS. Public Act 96-1241 requires that a judge who issues an emergency order of protection must promptly transmit the order to the sheriff for entry into the Illinois State Police’s LEADS system. Effective January 1, 2011.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=096-1241
|
