‘Modern family’ law is not modern enough

GUESTWORK | Ron Stradt

Senate Bill 57 recognizes today’s “modern family” by allocating parenting time and decision-making between both parents (see “Lawmakers move to update divorce, child custody law,” March 5). But the proposal fails to recognize current realities of dualincome households by omitting a similar provision for allocating each parent’s financial obligations to support their children.

Senate Bill 57 makes a monumental leap forward by codifying a presumption that both parents are “fit,” and by maximizing parenting time unless the trial court judge specifically finds that a parent would seriously endanger the child. Arguably, this recognizes the constitutionally protected right of a parent to parent their children 50 percent of the time in the absence of clear evidence that a parent is unfit. Under SB 57 it is far more likely than ever before that children of divorced parents will now experience an equitable 50/50 split of parenting time and neither parent will be unduly burdened with parental responsibilities.

However, the legislation falls short of recognizing today’s “modern family” of dual-income households where parents equally share the family’s financial obligations.

Contrary to the Illinois Times article, “custody” is not completely removed. SB 57 requires one parent to be designated as the parent with a majority of parenting time, and that parent is now deemed the “custodial” parent. The “custodial” parent is usually the one to whom child support is owed, thus triggering the child support obligations which remain untouched by SB 57.

Requiring one parent to have a majority of parenting time unreasonably denies a child equal time with both parents and undermines the presumption that both parents are fit to share a child’s time 50/50. Moreover, this requirement undermines any legislative intent to promote amicable dissolutions in that one parent will continue to assert false allegations and cast negative aspersions upon the other parent in order to gain a majority of parenting time and “custody.”

Although a trial court judge is not barred from making a downward deviation of the statutory child support guidelines or to make an appropriate “allocation” of support which accommodates a balanced parenting schedule, under SB 57 it remains a discretionary judicial function. And it is this discretion which will continue to fuel the battle for a majority of parenting time and result in one parent escaping personal financial responsibility for raising their children.

In the end, SB 57 makes great strides towards recognizing presumptions of fitness to parent and allocating parenting time as well as decision making. But its failure to codify allocations of financial responsibility based on each parent’s respective parenting time is a failure to hold parents financially accountable for the well-being of their children.

Ron Stradt of Springfi eld is an attorney and pro bono family law mediator.