In re Marriage of Moriarty , 2024 IL App (1st) 230270 ( 2024 )

2024 IL App (1st) 230270SECOND DIVISION
March 29, 2024
No. 1-23-0270
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
In re MARRIAGE OF )
) Appeal from
RHONDA V. MORIARTY, n/k/a Rhonda Jensen-Moriarty, ) the Circuit Court
) of Cook County
Petitioner-Appellant, )
) 2012-D-000158
and )
) Honorable
BRAD LEE MORIARTY, ) Dominique C. Ross,
) Judge Presiding
Respondent-Appellee. )
JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Ellis and Cobbs concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Pursuant to his divorce judgment with Rhonda Jensen-Moriarty, Brad Lee Moriarty made
his last child support payment when the youngest of their four children was over 18 and had
graduated from high school. Rhonda subsequently petitioned for adult disabled child support for
their third child, who was then a 21-year-old high school graduate still residing with her mother
and alleged to be incapable of ever living independently because of autism spectrum disorder and
other disabilities. The circuit court denied the petition, finding that the child was “already
emancipated” by virtue of her age and completion of high school. Rhonda contends this was a
misinterpretation of the Illinois statute regarding nonminor disabled child support—section
1-23-0270
513.5(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/513.5(a)
(West 2018)).
¶2 Rhonda and Brad married in 1988, separated in 2007, and divorced in 2012 by way of a
judgment for dissolution of marriage which incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA).
Rhonda was given sole care, custody, and control of the children, who were then ages 17, 14, 13,
and 10. Article IV of the MSA addressed child support. Paragraph 4.1 required Brad to pay
monthly child support until the youngest of the four “reached 18 along with having graduated from
high school (whichever is later) or otherwise being emancipated as otherwise [(sic)] defined
herein.” The next paragraph in article IV stated:
“4.2 TERMINATION OF CHILD SUPPORT: The child support obligation of BRAD
to pay child support [sic] hereunder shall forever and wholly terminate upon the first to
occur of the following events, which constitute ‘emancipation’ events for child support
purposes:
a) the youngest minor child graduating from high school;
b) the youngest minor child reaching the age of 18 as long as said child has
graduated from high school;
c) the youngest minor child no longer residing in the residence of the mother on a
permanent basis;
d) the youngest minor child beginning full-time employment other than during
summer months while said child is working towards a secondary educational diploma; or
e) the death of a minor child, combined with the emancipation of all other minor
children, as herein defined.”
-2-
1-23-0270
¶3 Article 7 of the MSA was titled “EMANCIPATION EVENT” and consisted of only one
paragraph, which stated:
“7.1 Except for [the] child support situation, with its own definition of ‘emancipation’
as set forth in said Article, an ‘emancipation event’ for a child shall occur or be deemed to
have occurred upon the earliest to happen of any of the following, at which time the
[parties’] obligations for each individual child as detailed in this [MSA] shall terminate:
a. The child[ ] reaching majority ***;
b. The child’s marriage;
c. The child[ ] having a permanent residence away from the permanent residence
of RHONDA. ***
***
f. The child[ ] engaging in full-time employment ***.”
¶4 It is undisputed that Brad was no longer required to make child support payments when he
ended them in mid-2019.
¶5 Rhonda filed the petition at issue on September 29, 2019, when Lindsey, the third of the
four children, was 21, contending that Lindsey required long-term financial support due to
disabilities that dated to at least the age of six when she had been diagnosed with autism spectrum
disorder. Rhonda alleged that Lindsey was also disabled by attention deficit hyperactive disorder,
generalized anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. She asked for financial support
as well a resumption of the parties’ obligations to maintain life insurance coverage that benefited
Lindsey and to share the expenses of her uninsured medical, dental, optical, and mental health
care. According to Rhonda’s testimony in support of the petition, Lindsey had struggled since very
-3-
1-23-0270
early childhood with emotions, comprehension, and communication. At the suggestion of her first
grade teacher, Lindsey received a neuropsychological evaluation. The testing resulted in her
transfer to a different school for the second grade, where she received “special education services”
pursuant to an individualized education plan (IEP) that was updated until Lindsey graduated from
high school. Lindsey’s IEP team recommended that she next attend the New Endeavors Transition
program, to receive training in life skills and social skills, and assistance with job placement. While
Lindsey was at New Endeavors Transition, a staff member of the Illinois Department of Human
Services recommended her for part-time employment at an assisted living and nursing home,
where she continues to work for $11.20 per hour as part of the waitstaff. Lindsey was declared
disabled by the Social Security Administration and receives disability benefits of $29.74 per
month. She has a disabled Illinois identification card (not a driver’s license). She resides with her
mother because she “does not have the capacity to be self-supportive now or in the future.” When
Rhonda sought estate planning assistance in 2018, she learned that Lindsey might qualify for
nonminor child support due to her disabilities, and the petition at issue soon followed. Its resolution
was delayed for several years. However, between July and December 2022, a domestic relations
judge heard testimony and argument.
¶6 In addition to Rhonda’s testimony, the court heard from Donna Woods, M.D., a board-
certified child and adolescent and adult psychiatrist with 22 years’ experience. Dr. Woods had
been treating Lindsey for 12 years and was familiar with her IEPs and neuropsychological
evaluations. She would see Lindsey as infrequently as every three months when she was stable but
as often as every two weeks when “in a crisis.” Their current appointments were approximately
six weeks apart and were primarily for medication management. Dr. Woods testified that Lindsey’s
-4-
1-23-0270
psychiatric and medical disorders are affecting her major life activities by making it difficult for
her to care for herself and to learn, concentrate, communicate, and interact with others. She is
incapable of maintaining a job “in a regular occupation” because she “can’t take feedback,”
becomes belligerent and argumentative, and “explodes on people.” She “really struggles with
interacting with others” because she “doesn’t get social cues,” “doesn’t have empathy,” interrupts
people in conversation, and talks “very rapidly.” Autism causes her to be rigid about maintaining
a routine, so that she will, for example, demand and scream at Rhonda to take her to a Starbucks
coffee shop on the way to work, even if the stop will make her late. Lindsey also lacks insight into
the impact of her behavior, such that during their last appointment, Lindsey was screaming at
Rhonda throughout and accusing her of falsely telling Dr. Woods that Lindsey was “very irritable,”
when in fact, Lindsey “has been struggling with emotional dysregulation and irritability and gets
very reactive.” Dr. Woods opined that Lindsey is unable to live independently because she can
neither drive nor manage transportation on her own and is unable to cook, “understand money,”
or “pay her own bills.” Also, Lindsey has been “disabled” since childhood within the meaning of
the Act.
¶7 Brad’s attorney cross-examined Rhonda and Dr. Woods but did not call other witnesses.
¶8 The judge denied Rhonda’s petition in January 2023. The judge determined that Lindsey
did not come within the terms of section 513.5(a), as that section authorizes support when the child
“has attained majority [but] is mentally or physically disabled and not otherwise emancipated”
(750 ILCS 5/513.5(a) (West 2018)), but Lindsey was already “21 years old and emancipated.”
Section 513.5(a) also specifies that “the disability that is the basis for the application for support
must have arisen while the child was eligible for support under Section 505 or 513 of this Act.”
-5-
1-23-0270
Id. Accordingly, the judge consulted section 505 of the Act (id. § 505), which is the general child
support statute, and section 513 of the Act (id. § 513), which concerns educational expenses, but
found that Lindsey did not qualify for support under either of those sections because she had
“already [become] emancipated” by virtue of being “over the age of 19 and graduated high school”
when Rhonda filed the petition. Lindsey was also emancipated within the meaning of the parties’
MSA. Having found that the petition was “not timely filed,” the circuit court did not reach the
question of whether Lindsey was disabled within the meaning of the Act.
¶9 This is a case of first impression regarding the timing of a petition for adult disabled child
support pursuant to section 513.5(a) of the Act (id. § 513.5(a)).
¶ 10 Rhonda completed her opening appellate brief in September 2023. In December 2023,
when Brad had not responded, we ordered the case to be taken on the appellant’s brief only. We
will consider the merits of the appeal because the record is simple and the claimed error can easily
be decided without the aid of an appellee’s brief. First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis
Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976).
¶ 11 Rhonda’s arguments about the meaning of the Act and the MSA pose questions of law,
which we review de novo. In re Marriage of Dynako, 2021 IL 126835, ¶¶ 14-15. With statutory
interpretation, the fundamental principle is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent.
Id. ¶ 14. The plain language of the statute is the best indication of that intent. Id. When statutory
language is clear and unambiguous, a court may not depart from the plain language and meaning
of the statute by creating exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express.
Id. The court will examine the statute as a whole, considering all of its relevant parts. In re
Christopher K., 217 Ill. 2d 348, 364 (2005). Words and phrases are to be interpreted in light of any
-6-
1-23-0270
other relevant provisions of the statute. In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847,
¶ 13.
¶ 12 Additionally, where the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we will not resort to
extrinsic construction aids. Christopher K., 217 Ill. 2d at 364. Principles of contract interpretation
govern the MSA. Dynako, 2012 IL 126835, ¶ 15; In re Marriage of Sweders, 296 Ill. App. 3d 919,
922 (1998). We ascertain the contracting parties’ intent from the plain language of the MSA itself.
Sweders, 296 Ill. App. 3d at 922. When MSA terms are unambiguous, they must be given their
plain and ordinary meaning. Id. “A trial court has broad discretion in determining the necessity for
and the amount of child support, and its decision will not be set aside unless the trial court abused
its discretion or its order is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” In re Marriage of
Thurmond, 306 Ill. App. 3d 828, 832 (1999); In re Marriage of Mitchell, 103 Ill. App. 3d 242, 249
(1981). A determination is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence only when an opposite
conclusion is clearly apparent or when the court’s findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or
not based upon the evidence. In re Marriage of Romano, 2012 IL App (2d) 091339, ¶ 44.
¶ 13 The provisions of the Act “do not extend the parental obligation for support beyond
minority except in limited statutory situations” or “unless otherwise agreed in writing or by court
order.” Finley v. Finley, 81 Ill. 2d 317, 326 (1980).
¶ 14 Section 513.5 is one of those rare exceptions for adult support, providing as follows:
“Support for a non-minor child with a disability.
(a) The court may award sums of money out of the property and income of either or
both parties or the estate of a deceased parent, as equity may require, for the support of a
child of the parties who has attained majority when the child is mentally or physically
-7-
1-23-0270
disabled and not otherwise emancipated. The sums awarded may be paid to one of the
parents, to a trust created by the parties for the benefit of the non-minor child with a
disability, or irrevocably to a special needs trust, established by the parties and for the sole
benefit of the non-minor child with a disability, pursuant to subdivisions (d)(4)(A) or
(d)(4)(C) of 42 U.S.C. 1396p, Section 15.1 of the Trusts and Trustees Act, and applicable
provisions of the Social Security Administration Program Operating Manual System.[ 1] An
application for support for a non-minor disabled child may be made before or after the
child has attained majority. Unless an application for educational expenses is made for a
mentally or physically disabled child under Section 513, the disability that is the basis for
the application for support must have arisen while the child was eligible for support under
Section 505 or 513 of this Act.
(b) In making awards under this Section, or pursuant to a petition or motion to decrease,
modify, or terminate any such award, the court shall consider all relevant factors that appear
reasonable and necessary, including:
(1) the present and future financial resources of both parties to meet their needs,
including, but not limited to, savings for retirement;
(2) the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been
dissolved. The court may consider factors that are just and equitable;
1
Because Rhonda petitioned on September 19, 2019, we are analyzing the version of the statute
that was in effect until December 31, 2019. Subsequent minor revisions have been made to the statute but
none of them affected the language at issue. In paragraph (a), as of 2020, the phrase “Section 15.1 of the
Trusts and Trustees Act” was changed to “Section 1213 of the Illinois Trust Code” (Pub. Act 101-48, § 1608
(eff. Jan. 1, 2020) (amending 750 ILCS 5/513.5)), and then, effective 2022, “Section 1213 of the Illinois
Trust Code” was changed to “Section 509 of the Illinois Trust Code” (Pub. Act 102-279, § 7 (eff. Jan. 1,
2022)). Also, effective 2022, in paragraph (a), the phrase “irrevocably to a special needs trust” was changed
to “irrevocably to a trust for a beneficiary with a disability.” Id.
-8-
1-23-0270
(3) the financial resources of the child; and
(4) any financial or other resource provided to or for the child including, but not
limited to, any Supplemental Security Income, any home-based support provided
pursuant to the Home-Based Support Services Law for Mentally Disabled Adults, and
any other State, federal, or local benefit available to the non-minor disabled child.
(c) As used in this Section:
A ‘disabled’ individual means an individual who has a physical or mental impairment
that substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of such an impairment, or is
regarded as having such an impairment.
‘Disability’ means a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits a major life
activity.” 750 ILCS 5/513.5 (West 2018).
¶ 15 This language codified Illinois decisional law indicating that a parent may be required to
support a child who has attained majority but is mentally or physically disabled. See In re
Marriage of Kennedy, 170 Ill. App. 3d 726, 732 (1988) (analyzing the statute when it was known
as paragraph 513 rather than 513.5) (citing Freestate v. Freestate, 244 Ill. App. 166, 167 (1927)
(regarding a parent’s petition 10 years after divorce, seeking support for a 23-year-old child who
had been “an invalid since she was two years old,” the court found that support could be ordered
if the parent made a sufficient showing on remand) and Strom v. Strom, 13 Ill. App. 2d 354, 367-
68 (1957) (with respect to a parent’s petition 12 years after divorce, seeking increased child support
for a child who was disabled by polio, the court determined “it is the obligation of a parent of
ample means to support a child incapable of self-support beyond the period of that child’s
minority” and to provide for that child’s “care and education”)). This support obligation has been
-9-
1-23-0270
codified since 1971. In re Guardianship of Sanders, 2017 IL App (4th) 160502, ¶ 17.
¶ 16 As just set out fully above, the first sentence of section 513.5(a) limits awards “as equity
may require, for the support of a child of the parties who has attained majority when the child is
mentally or physically disabled and not otherwise emancipated.” We read this sentence to
authorize support for a disabled child, provided that the person “has attained majority” and is “not
otherwise emancipated.” The arrival at majority age and emancipation are two distinct life events.
However, as discussed below, the circuit court seems to have conflated Lindsey’s age with
emancipation because immediately after quoting the first sentence of section 513.5(a), the court
concluded, “In this case, the adult child, Lindsey was 21 years old and emancipated.” The court
cited no statutory language which suggested that the General Assembly used the terms majority
and emancipation synonymously and cited no testimony or evidence about emancipation.
¶ 17 Majority age and emancipation have different meanings. Generally, a child will be
considered emancipated “when he reaches the age of 18, at which time the child attains majority.”
Sweders, 296 Ill. App. 3d at 922 (citing In re Marriage of Ferraro, 211 Ill. App. 3d 797, 799-800
(1991)). However, a minor child may become emancipated under either the common law or by
statute. In re Marriage of Baumgartner, 237 Ill. 2d 468, 479 (2010). Illinois precedent indicates
that a self-emancipated child is one who has not reached majority but is “ ‘physically and mentally
able to take care of himself, [has] voluntarily abandon[ed] the parental roof and [left] its protection
and influence, and [gone] out into the world to fight the battle of life on his own account.’ ” In re
Marriage of Donahoe, 114 Ill. App. 3d 470, 475 (1983) (quoting Iroquois Iron Co. v. Industrial
Comm’n, 294 Ill. 106, 109 (1920)); see In re Marriage of Walters, 238 Ill. App. 3d 1086, 1091
(1992) (“It is clear that emancipation includes, but is not limited to, reaching the age of majority.”).
- 10 -
1-23-0270
The statutory path to emancipation is through the Emancipation of Minors Act, whose stated
purpose is to
“provide a means by which a mature minor who has demonstrated the ability and capacity
to manage [the minor’s] own affairs and to live wholly or partially independent of [the
minor’s] parents or guardian, may obtain the legal status of an emancipated person with
power to enter into valid legal contracts.” 750 ILCS 30/2 (West 2018).
Similarly, a legal dictionary defines “Emancipation” as:
“1. The act by which one who was under another’s power and control is freed. 2. A
surrender and renunciation of the correlative rights and duties concerning the care, custody,
and earnings of a child; the act by which a parent (historically a father) frees a child and
gives the child the right to his or her own earnings. *** This act also frees the parent from
all legal obligations of support. Emancipation may take place by agreement between the
parent and child, by operation of law (as when the parent abandons or fails to support the
child), or when the child gets legally married or enters the armed forces.” Black’s Law
Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
¶ 18 Thus, broadly speaking, emancipation from one’s parents occurs when one is able to care
for oneself, live independently, and provide one’s own financial support. There is no “bright-line
standard” for emancipation, and “the unique facts and circumstances of each case must be
evaluated.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Baumgartner, 237 Ill. 2d at 480.
¶ 19 The record indicates that Lindsey was “not otherwise emancipated” because, despite being
of majority age, a high school graduate, and a part-time employee with accommodations by her
employer, Lindsey is not “ ‘mentally able to take care of [her]self,’ ” and has not left the
- 11 -
1-23-0270
“ ‘protection and influence’ ” of her mother’s home. Donahoe, 114 Ill. App. 3d at 475 (quoting
Iroquois Iron Co., 294 Ill. at 109). Nor has Lindsey “demonstrated the ability and capacity to
manage [her] own affairs and to live wholly or partially independent of [her] parents or guardian.”
750 ILCS 30/2 (West 2018). Furthermore, the testimony about Lindsey’s earnings indicates that
she is not capable of supporting herself, given that she is not generally employable, works part-
time for an employer that accommodates her disabilities but pays below minimum wage, and
receives a monthly federal disability payment that is less than $30. The circuit court’s finding that
Lindsey “was 21 years old and emancipated” was contrary to the meaning of Act and the manifest
weight of the evidence. By ruling based on Lindsey’s age, the circuit court nullified the statutory
phrase “not otherwise emancipated” and changed the meaning of the Act.
¶ 20 Briefly, the second sentence of section 513.5(a) restricts where the payments may be
deposited. We may disregard this sentence because it does not speak to the issue of the timing of
a parent’s petition.
¶ 21 The third sentence allows an application to be filed “before or after the child has attained
majority.”
¶ 22 The concluding sentence of 513.5(a) indicates that “the disability *** must have arisen
while the child was eligible for support under either Section 505 or 513 of this Act.” 750 ILCS
5/513.5(a) (West 2018). The first of those two sections—section 505—is Illinois’s general child
support statute and authorizes support for “any child under age 18 and any child age 19 or younger
who is still attending high school” (id. § 505(a)), and the other section—section 513—is specific
to children’s educational expenses “incurred no later than the student’s 23rd birthday, except for
good cause shown, but in no event later than the child’s 25th birthday” (id. § 513(a)). We read the
- 12 -
1-23-0270
fourth sentence to narrow awards to instances when a child’s disability manifested while they were
eligible either for general child support pursuant to section 505 or reimbursement of educational
expenses pursuant to section 513. In our opinion, the fourth sentence is about the timing of a child’s
disability, rather than the timing of a section 513.5(a) application. The circuit court seems to have
misconstrued this sentence as a limitation on the timing of Rhonda’s petition by finding, “There is
no provision contained within 750 ILCS 5/505 or 750 ILCS 5/513 that allows for the award of
support from Respondent to Petitioner on behalf of Lindsey as an adult disabled child after Lindsey
reached the age of 18 years or graduated high school by the age of 19 years.” The circuit court
erred because the fourth sentence was not about the timeliness of Rhonda’s petition.
¶ 23 Although we quoted the full statute above, we are limiting our discussion to the four
sentences in section 513.5(a). See id. § 513.5(a). We need not analyze the language of section
513.5(b), which lists factors the circuit court shall consider when making a section 513.5 award,
such as the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved.
Id. § 513.5(b). Nor do we need to contemplate section 513.5(c), which defines the terms
“ ‘disabled’ ” or “ ‘Disability,’ ” neither of which affect the outcome of this appeal. See id.
§ 513.5(c).
¶ 24 Reading the first paragraph as a whole, along with the record, we find that Rhonda’s
petition for adult disabled child support (1) was appropriately timed, even after Lindsey’s
eighteenth birthday (consistent with the third sentence’s specification that an “application for
support for a non-minor disabled child may be made before or after the child has attained majority”
(id. § 513.5(a))); (2) was concerning a disabling condition that Rhonda alleged arose during
Lindsey’s childhood (in conformance with the fourth sentence’s limitation that “the disability that
- 13 -
1-23-0270
is the basis for the application for support must have arisen while the child was eligible for support
under Section 505 or 513 of this Act” (id.)); and (3) sought support for an adult child who was
“not otherwise emancipated” (satisfying the first sentence, which states, “The court may award
sums of money out of the property and income of either or both parties or the estate of a deceased
parent, as equity may require, for the support of a child of the parties who has attained majority
when the child is mentally or physically disabled and not otherwise emancipated” (id.)).
¶ 25 We also find that the MSA was not relevant to the proceedings, because it was limited to
Rhonda and Brad’s obligations to their children due to their minority, but these proceedings
concerned Rhonda and Brad’s subsequent obligations to Lindsey due to a disabling condition that
persisted from her minority to majority when she was not otherwise emancipated. Article 4 of the
MSA, titled “CHILD SUPPORT,” indicated that Brad’s “obligation *** to pay child support
hereunder shall forever and wholly terminate upon the first to occur of the following events.”
(Emphasis added.) Article 7 of the MSA, regarding “EMANCIPATION EVENT,” specified that
upon emancipation, “the [parties’] obligations for each individual child as detailed in this Marital
Settlement Agreement shall terminate.” (Emphasis added.) The parties’ obligations under the MSA
included, for example, maintaining the children’s health insurance coverage. Articles 4 and 7
spoke of child support and emancipation within the bounds of the MSA. Neither article broached
the topic of supporting any of the children into adulthood. If, by some stretch of the imagination
the MSA did address Lindsey’s need for child support as an adult, then those terms were not the
final word on the subject. On page 19 of the MSA, Rhonda and Brad agreed, “E. Except for those
provisions concerning custody, child support or welfare of the minor children, this Judgment ***
and [MSA] shall not be modifiable by any subsequent Court of competent jurisdiction.” (Emphasis
- 14 -
1-23-0270
added.) Thus, on page 19, the parties acknowledged that child support payments were subject to
judicial modification. All in all, the MSA was not on point, and it was unnecessary for the circuit
court to determine whether Lindsey was emancipated for purposes of the MSA or conclude, “There
is no provision contained in the parties[’] MSA that allows for support of Lindsey beyond [the
date] when the parties[’] youngest child *** reached the age of 18 years or graduated high school
by the age of 19 years.”
¶ 26 For these reasons, we vacate the dismissal of Rhonda’s petition for disabled, nonminor
child support as “not timely filed,” and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this
order.
¶ 27 Reversed and remanded.
- 15 -
1-23-0270
In re Marriage of Moriarty, 2024 IL App (1st) 230270Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 2012-D-
000158; the Hon. Dominique C. Ross, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys Nicholaus J. Dilly and Simul S. Jhaveri, of Davis Friedman, LLP,
for of Chicago, for appellant.
Appellant:
Attorneys No brief filed for appellee.
for
Appellee:
- 16 -