In re Marriage of Moriarty

2024 IL App (1st) 230270

SECOND 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) 230270

Decision 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 -