Enforcement of Support Orders

a. The Effect of In re Marriage of Lappe

Before considering both old and newer “private” remedies to enforce child support, it is imperative and informative to read In re Marriage of Lappe, 176 Ill.2d 414, 680 N.E.2d 380, 392, 223 Ill.Dec. 647 (1997), in which the Illinois Supreme Court made an eloquent statement in Support of more effective child support enforcement, the recent Illinois welfare reform laws, and Illinois families:

Child support enforcement in this country has, in the past, been a national disgrace, due both to the lack of effective enforcement programs and the failure to implement those programs by the officials charged with the enforcement. . . . It was the legislature’s province to assess this crisis and determine whether, and how, to respond. We are not persuaded that the legislature exceeded the bounds of its discretion in enacting the legislation here challenged.[citations omitted.]

Lynn Lappe argued it was unconstitutional for the state’s attorney to represent her former husband in Title IV-D child support proceedings (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §301, et seq.) against her since neither parent was a welfare recipient. She alleged that with a postmaster’s salary of $41,000 annually, Larry had sufficient income and should have used private counsel rather than the state’s attorney acting on behalf of the Title IV-D program. Larry and the State cited §§10-1 and 10-10 of the Illinois Public Aid Code (Public Aid Code), 305 ILCS 5/1-1, et seq., which permit the Illinois Department of Public Aid to furnish child support enforcement services on behalf of spouses and dependent children who ware not applicants for or recipients of financial aid. Lynn argued that the statute was either unconstitutional on its face or unconstitutional “as applied” because the Illinois Constitution mandates that public funds be used only for public purposes, and the circuit court agreed with her “as applied” argument.

The IDPA appealed, and the appellate court transferred the case pursuant to S.Ct. Rule 302(a)(1). The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. As background for the court’s finding that the IDPA and the state’s attorney had acted constitutionally, Justice Bilandic writing for the court examined that statutory framework and public purposes involved. He described the economic and social basis and requirements of the Title IV-D program and wrote that, because Illinois has chosen to participate in the federal program, it must and does provide child support enforcement to “any . . . child.” See §4.86 below, “Application for Child Support Services with the IV-D Agency.”

See also In re Marriage of Hartment, 305 Ill.App.3d 338, 712 N.E.2d 367, 238 Ill.Dec. 645 (2d Dist. 1999), in which the former husband was found in indirect civil contempt for his failure to pay child support notwithstanding the fact that the IDPA had filed a petition under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act seeking enforcement of the same obligation from the State of Florida. On September 9, 1997, the wife initiated a child support enforcement action through the IDPA, which thereafter filed a child support collection action pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, which was transmitted to the State of Florida for enforcement. The husband settled with the Florida authorities, agreeing to make payment on the arrearages in the amount of $5 per week and to pay his continuing child support obligation of $85 per week.

Nonetheless, Illinois reserved jurisdiction regarding arrearages that might have accrued from August 11, 1997, through February 13, 1998, as supported by the plain language of the Uniform act, which provides for continuing exclusive jurisdiction for a child support order as long as the state remains the residence of the obligor, the obligee, or the minor child for whose benefit the order is issued or until the parties have consented to an alternative forum.

Clearly, we are in an aggressive era in child support collection and enforcement in the State of Illinois.

Back to Index

See Also: