Background
Catherine Brown and Kevin Jones divorced in Cook County in 2013. Jones, who was detained in the Cook County jail and did not appear, was ordered to pay child support equal to 28% of his future net income for Georgia and Treasure, identified in the dissolution judgment as children of the marriage. The order did not specify a dollar amount.
In October 2024, Brown moved to collect child support. Jones filed a section 2-1401 petition asserting that he was not Georgia’s father; the circuit court denied that petition and held a hearing on alleged arrearages. After the hearing, at which both parties represented themselves, the circuit court denied Brown’s motion. Its written order cited records from another dissolution case in which Brown had identified a child with Georgia’s name and birthdate as Daryl Walker’s child, and it also referred to laches and the lack of a dollar-denominated support amount. Brown appealed without supplying a report of proceedings or bystander’s report from the hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed because Brown did not provide a record adequate to show that the circuit court abused its discretion. Under Foutch v. O’Bryant, an appellant bears the burden to furnish a complete record, and an appellate court must presume that the trial court acted consistently with the law and had a sufficient factual basis when the record is incomplete.
The court did not treat the circuit court’s order as a new adjudication that Jones was not Georgia’s legal parent. The written order did not purport to vacate the 2013 dissolution judgment or decide parentage anew. Nor could the appellate court determine, without a transcript or bystander’s report, what evidence and arguments were presented or whether Brown proved the factual and procedural prerequisites for the arrearages sought. The court noted that a percentage-based support order is erroneous but not void under Illinois law, but held that the incomplete record prevented reversal on that issue as well.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant challenging the denial of child-support arrearages must provide a report of proceedings or an acceptable substitute when the hearing evidence matters to the claimed error.
- An order noting potentially inconsistent parentage-related court records does not itself vacate an earlier parentage adjudication unless the order actually says so.
- A support provision stated as a percentage of income rather than a dollar amount may be erroneous, but it is not void where the court had jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that appellate review of support-arrearage disputes is often record-dependent. Even where a written order appears to rely on legally questionable reasoning, the appellant cannot obtain reversal by asking the reviewing court to infer what occurred at an unreported evidentiary hearing.
The order is nonprecedential under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23, except as permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).