In re the Marriage of Dow
Key Takeaways
- 1 Section 609.2 relocation restrictions apply only after parenting time has been formally allocated by a court.
- 2 Bona fide loans with genuine repayment obligations are not 'income' for child support calculations under the MDMA.
- 3 Relevant for family law attorneys advising clients on interstate child relocation, parenting time allocation, and child support income disputes.
Summary
Bryan and Kari Dow separated in 2022 after four years of marriage. Kari relocated with their minor son to Florida in May 2022, before Bryan filed for dissolution in August 2022. Bryan filed an emergency motion to return the child to Illinois, which the trial court denied after finding section 609.2 of the MDMA inapplicable and crediting evidence that Bryan had consented to the move. Following a 2024 trial, the court entered an Allocation Judgment permitting the child to remain in Florida and ordered Bryan to pay $1,300 per month in child support, declining to count $6,000 per month Kari received from her father as income after finding those payments were bona fide loans. Bryan appealed both rulings.
The appellate court affirmed on both issues. On relocation, the court held that section 609.2 applies only to a parent who has been allocated parenting time, and because no dissolution proceeding had been filed and no parenting time had been allocated when Kari moved, the statute simply did not apply. The court rejected Bryan's policy argument that this outcome incentivizes pre-filing relocations, noting that parenting time remains a central issue in any dissolution action and that criminal child abduction statutes provide additional deterrence. On child support, the court held that whether a payment constitutes income depends on whether it is a bona fide loan requiring repayment — a factual question reviewed for manifest weight. Because Kari's unrebutted testimony established a genuine repayment obligation and Bryan failed to challenge that factual finding on appeal, the court declined to disturb it.
For family law practitioners, this decision clarifies that section 609.2's relocation restrictions have no pre-allocation application, underscoring the importance of promptly seeking emergency parenting time orders when a spouse relocates with a child before dissolution is filed. The case also provides a useful framework for litigating whether familial financial transfers constitute income for child support purposes, emphasizing that the bona fide nature of a loan is a fact-specific inquiry.
Key Holdings
1. Section 609.2 of the MDMA, which governs relocation of a minor child, applies only to a parent who has been allocated a majority or equal parenting time; it does not apply where no dissolution proceeding has been filed and no parenting time has been allocated at the time of the move.
2. Whether payments received by a parent constitute 'income' for child support purposes under the MDMA depends on whether they are bona fide loans with genuine repayment obligations; such a determination is a factual finding reviewed for manifest weight of the evidence.
3. A bona fide loan requiring repayment — including familial loans supported by unrebutted testimony of a repayment obligation — is not 'income' under the MDMA's child support provisions.
4. An appellant who fails to challenge the trial court's specific factual finding on appeal, and instead advances only an incorrect legal proposition, forfeits appellate review of that factual finding.