Court Opinion

ID: 9516740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:50:50.877486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:05.613542
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WOLFSON, dissenting: Max is not a minor. Nor is he a delinquent. He is a 22-year-old adult. He was 20 when he was convicted of a felony and sentenced to three years in prison. The judgment order in this case provides that the obligation to pay Max’s educational expenses is conditioned on “the child’s desire and ability to further his education.” No evidence concerning Max’s desire and ability to further his education was received by the trial court. In my view the record reflects Max abandoned any pursuit of a higher education when he pled guilty to two felonies involving sexual abuse of a child. An adult’s abandonment of education can be an emancipating event. See In re Marriage of Alltop, 203 Ill. App. 3d 606, 618 (1990). Section 513(a)(2) vests the trial court with discretion in matters concerning educational expenses incurred by a nonminor. 750 ILCS 57513(a)(2) (West 2008). Here, the trial court exercised that discretion. It is true no Illinois decision squarely holds conviction of a felony can or cannot deprive a nonminor of previously ordered educational expenses. Nor does the statute set out specific emancipating events. That did not stop the court from deciding a nonminor’s marriage was a legally emancipating event in In re Marriage of Daniels, 296 Ill. App. 3d 446 (1998). I believe the record and the judgment order in this case support the trial court’s exercise of discretion. I would affirm.