In re A.H.

227 N.E.3d 720

2023 IL App (1st) 190572

IN RE Parentage of A.H., A.H., and A.H., Minors,

(Wipaporn T., Individually and as Parent and Next Friend on Behalf of Minors A.H., A.H., and A.H., Petitioner-Appellee,

v.Harlow H., Respondent-Appellant).

Nos. 1-19-0572, 1-19-0783, 1-21-0017, & 1-21-0185 (Cons.)

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, FOURTH DIVISION.

Opinion Filed: August 17, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 11-D-6475; the Hon. Jeanne Cleveland Bernstein, Judge, presiding.

David F. Wentzel, of Wentzel Law Offices, and Michael G. DiDomenico and Sean M. Hamann, of Lake Toback DiDomenico, both of Chicago, for appellant.

Paul J. Bargiel, of Paul J. Bargiel, P.C., of Glen Ellyn, and Gemma B. Allen, of Allen & Glassman, Chtrd., of Chicago, for appellee.

OPINION

JUSTICE ROCHFORD^* delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 In this action, petitioner-appellee Wipaporn T., individually and, as parent of her triplet sons who were born in Thailand, sought enforcement and modification of a child support order entered by a court in Thailand against respondent-appellant Harlow H., the biological father of the triplets (Thai judgment). Petitioner and the triplets now reside in the United Kingdom, with petitioner’s husband. Respondent resides in Illinois. The circuit court entered orders requiring respondent to pay (1) over $76,000 in past due child support under the Thai judgment, (2) $4.5 million into trusts for prospective modified child support, (3) $2 million in retroactive modified child support, (4) over $2 million in attorney fees and costs, and (5) $50,000 in sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (eff. Jan. 1, 2018).

¶ 2 On appeal, respondent argues that the circuit court (1) lacked statutory authority to modify the Thai judgment, (2) erred by applying pre-July 1, 2017, Illinois child support laws, (3) abused its discretion by barring the testimony of respondent’s immigration expert, (4) abused its discretion by modifying the child support award in the Thai judgment and making the modified child support retroactive with interest and creating child support trusts, (5) abused its discretion by adopting the terms of the trust agreements, (6) failed to give respondent credit for child support payments and overfunded the child support trusts, (7) erred in awarding attorney fees and costs, and (8) abused its discretion by ordering him to pay $50,000 in sanctions for violating Rule 137.

¶ 3 We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

¶ 4 Respondent is well educated and has had a long and successful career in business. He is married to Susan H. Respondent visited Thailand several times each year between 2001 and 2009 and met petitioner. Petitioner studied marketing in college and, when she lived in Thailand, operated two beauty salons and a spa.

¶ 5 The parties began a romantic relationship in Thailand in 2001, when petitioner was 23 and respondent was 53. Over the course of several years, they would meet when respondent visited Thailand. In 2008, petitioner gave birth in Thailand to the triplets via in vitro fertilization using respondent’s sperm and petitioner’s eggs. Respondent financially supported petitioner and the triplets until September 2009, when he told Susan about the triplets.

¶ 6 As a result, petitioner filed suit against respondent in Thailand. In December 2010, the Thai court adjudicated him to be the father of the triplets based on DNA test results and ordered him to pay $500 per month for the support of each of the triplets. This judgment was affirmed by Thailand’s intermediate appellate and supreme courts. Respondent, however, failed to pay any child support.

¶ 7 Petitioner and the triplets left Thailand in May 2012 and currently reside in the United Kingdom with petitioner’s husband, Winton, a British citizen.

¶ 8 In June 2011, petitioner filed the petition that gave rise to this action and sought recognition, enforcement, and modification of the Thai judgment. The circuit court, in August 2013, enrolled the Thai judgment under the principles of comity, determined that respondent owed $76,242.46 in past due child support under that judgment, and ordered him to pay that sum within 30 days. In July 2015, the circuit court stayed all matters while the Thai judgment was under review in the Supreme Court of Thailand. The stay was lifted in May 2016 after the Supreme Court of Thailand issued a certificate of case finality. In January 2017, this court affirmed the August 2013 judgment of the circuit court. In re Parentage of A.H., 2017 IL App (1st) 133703, 410 Ill.Dec. 357, 69 N.E.3d 902.

¶ 9 Meanwhile, in December 2016, respondent sued petitioner in the United Kingdom, claiming that she had violated an agreement to keep their relationship private. In October 2017, the court struck the suit, holding that it was an abuse of process. Respondent unsuccessfully appealed that decision to two courts of review in the United Kingdom.

¶ 10 In April 2017, petitioner filed a three-count petition in the circuit court of Cook County. Count I sought a modification of the Thai judgment so as to increase child support. Count II sought an injunction directing respondent to execute the requisite paperwork for the triplets to be recognized as United States citizens and an order requiring respondent to pay petitioner’s attorney fees and costs. Count III sought an order registering the Thai judgment.

¶ 11 Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the circuit court lacked statutory authority to modify the Thai judgment under section 615 of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (Support Act) (750 ILCS 22/615 (West 2016)).

¶ 12 In October 2017, the circuit court appointed a representative for the children and later converted that representative to their guardian ad litem (GAL). In March 2018, the court approved the GAL’s costs to travel to the United Kingdom to meet with the triplets, petitioner, and her hus- band. The GAL later filed a report of his findings.

¶ 13 On May 2, 2018, petitioner filed an emergency motion for a hearing on her request for injunctive relief against respondent, alleging that she and the triplets were facing potential deportation from the United Kingdom to Thailand because they did not have proof of sufficient means and financial support. Petitioner asked that respondent be required to establish a trust on behalf of the triplets with a minimum of £80,000 to cover the costs of private health insurance and schooling.

¶ 14 During argument on the emergency motion, petitioner informed the court that she did not have the financial resources to meet the triplets’ medical and academic needs. She could not bring an action in the United Kingdom courts because of her immigration issues, and they had no passports and could not travel to seek relief in the courts of Thailand. The circuit court found that respondent’s failure to comply with the Thai judgment and strategy of litigating this matter "to death" resulted in the emergency situation the triplets now faced. The court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition and ordered him to complete the documentation concerning the triplets’ United States citizenship. Additionally, the court set deadlines for respondent to respond to the petition, the emergency motion, and the GAL’s amended fee petition. The court set the hearing on the emergency motion for June 22, 2018, and set the trial on counts I and III of the petition for August 27, 2018.

¶ 15 On May 23, 2018, petitioner filed a petition seeking $171,606 in attorney fees and a ruling on prior fee petitions, which had been pending since October 2017. Respondent moved to strike the fee petition.

¶ 16 On that same day, respondent filed a motion to discharge the GAL and strike his report and fee petition. He again raised section 615 of the Support Act and an argument that the circuit court was not authorized to modify the Thai judgment. This motion was denied.

¶ 17 On June 27, 2018, petitioner filed an amended fee petition, requesting the court to order respondent to fund a trust for $1 million for incurred and prospective legal fees. Respondent filed responses to the fee petition and amended fee petition, arguing that the circuit court could not award interim fees and lacked statutory authority to create a trust to secure the payment of any attorney fees.

¶ 18 On July 20, 2018, the circuit court ordered respondent to tender $1.75 million to the GAL’s IOLTA account¹ by July 25, 2018, to "fund an interim and prospective attorney fees and costs trust for the benefit of the attorneys for petitioner and attorneys for the minor children." When respondent did not comply with that order, the court, on July 25, 2018, appointed a receiver over respondent’s income and assets and temporarily enjoined him from transferring or otherwise disposing of his income and assets (TRO).

¶ 19 On July 27, 2018, the circuit court amended the initial receiver order and detailed the scope of the receiver’s authority. The receiver was given the authority to take exclusive custody and control of respondent’s real and personal property, obtain full access to his assets, including bank accounts, and pay the $1.75 million owed by respondent into the GAL’s IOLTA account from respondent’s assets. After receiving the money from respondent’s bank account, the receiver trans- ferred the $1.75 million to the GAL’s IOLTA account.

¶ 20 On August 1, 2018, the court stayed prior orders with respect to the receiver collecting and directing respondent’s income and assets; however, the TRO that was part of the initial receiver order was to remain in place except to the extent necessary for respondent to pay monthly child support payments.

¶ 21 On August 6, 2018, the court entered a preliminary injunction (injunction order) enjoining respondent from transferring, withdrawing, or otherwise disposing of his assets subject to a cap of $30,000 per month...