Court Opinion

ID: 9819255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:21:06.381579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:29.720927
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BRESLIN, dissenting: Although I find no fault in the majority’s recitation of how requests for retroactive child support are normally treated under the Act, I do not believe we are presented with such a situation by the case at hand. In this case, the paternity of Justin was in question at the time of the second phase of the bifurcated dissolution proceeding. As a result, the court entered an order in which it quite clearly stated that, if Michael was proved to be Justin’s father, Justin would be awarded child support in an equitable amount and that Michael would be obligated to pay said amount “retroactively to the date of [the court’s] order.” Both parties approved and agreed to this order. Having failed to challenge the order on direct appeal, I would hold that Michael is collaterally estopped from doing so now. See Rhoads v. Board of Trustees of the City of Calumet City Policemen’s Pension Fund, 293 Ill. App. 3d 1070, 689 N.E.2d 266 (1997) (collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating an issue already decided in a prior proceeding). Consequently, I would affirm the trial court with respect to its award of back child support.