| Increase Denied | | | | increased ability to support them; hence, the |
| Trial court properly denied petitioner's request for | | | | appellate court found an abuse of discretion in the |
| increased child support. Modification of support is | | | | circuit court's dismissal of petitioner's petition for |
| required where there is a substantial imbalance | | | | modification and found that the record supported an |
| between the supporting parent's capabilities and the | | | | increase in child support in an amount calculated |
| child's needs. Where there was sufficient evidence to | | | | pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/505(a). |
| justify the finding that, since the entry of the original | | | | Minimum Support Guidelines |
| divorce decree, the needs of the defendant's children | | | | The guidelines for minimum support in 750 ILCS 5/505 |
| had increased materially, and the evidence also | | | | are to be used when considering the modification of |
| sustained a finding that defendant was able to pay | | | | a support judgment. |
| an increased amount of child support, trial court | | | | In General |
| findings that defendant should pay increased child | | | | Parties cannot agree to make child support |
| support was not contrary to the manifest weight of | | | | nonmodifiable; child support is modifiable even when |
| the evidence. | | | | combined with nonmodifiable alimony or maintenance. |
| Increase in Child Support | | | | Unlike other final orders, a decree of child support is |
| Trial court abused its discretion in failing to comply | | | | always modifiable. When a supporting spouse's |
| with 750 ILCS 5/510(a) and 750 ILCS 5/513 of the | | | | financial condition improves notably, where there is a |
| Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5 | | | | discussion suggesting that increases should be made, |
| 510(a) and 750 ILCS/ 5/513, before extending the | | | | child support payments may be required to be |
| termination date of a support order to provide child | | | | increased, even though there is no showing that the |
| support for an 18 year old until his graduation from | | | | child's or children's needs have increased specifically |
| high school. The trial court did not abuse its discretion | | | | where the original support payments did not |
| in increasing the amount of child support where the | | | | adequately meet the children's needs. The proper |
| children had grown older and, thus, the court could | | | | issue before the trial court on a motion to modify |
| presume their needs increased, ex-wife testified that | | | | child support payments was whether the |
| as the children were older, they became more | | | | circumstances of the parties and the children had |
| involved in school activities, thereby increasing their | | | | materially changed since the divorce decree and only |
| expenses, husband's financial affidavits indicated he | | | | if these circumstances have changed since the time |
| was making a higher salary than he did at the time of | | | | of the original decree would a modification of the |
| dissolution and this was not contradicted, and ex-wife | | | | child support be proper. The modification of child |
| was not making much more money and testified she | | | | support payments is a judicial function which is to be |
| needed the child support in order to make ends | | | | administered solely by the court and at its discretion. |
| meet. Petitioner clearly established both increased | | | | For a case discussing modification of payments for |
| expenses for her daughters and respondent's | | | | children's education. |