Synopsis: If you don’t feel the need to support your offspring or pay your child support, your workers’ compensation benefits will be used to pay child support for you.
Editor’s comment: This is a decision that is hard to argue with. It appears some children are better off if their biological forebears are not working. In Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services Ex Rel. Elizabeth A. Black v Frank H. Bartholomew, the Fourth District of the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a Circuit Court ruling allowing the payment of child support arrearage from a workers’ compensation award and ruled Illinois law and public policy allow a trial court to apply proceeds from a workers’ compensation settlement toward a child-support arrearage.
By way of background—in March 2005, Elizabeth and Frank, who were not married, had a son, Nicholas. Frank signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity and “accepted the obligation to provide child support” for Nicholas. On February 6, 2007, the Department issued an administrative support order pursuant to its authority under article X of the Illinois Public Aid Code (Code) (305 ILCS 5/10-1 through 10-28 (West 2006)) requiring Frank to pay child support of $428.52 per month. On August 23, 2007, the Department issued an income-withholding notice to Frank’s employer ordering it to withhold $428.52 per month for current child support, as well as $85.70 per month toward a delinquency of $6,602.34. On October 23, 2007, Elizabeth filed a petition to establish the existence of a father-child relationship and for other relief. With her petition, Elizabeth provided a copy of the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, the administrative support order, and the income-withholding notice and alleged Frank had filed a workers’ compensation claim and was awaiting settlement. She asked the trial court to adjudicate Frank the father of Nicholas, order him to pay child support, prohibit him from dissipating any workers’ compensation settlement, and grant her 20% of any such settlement as current child support. On January 3, 2008, the trial court held a hearing on Elizabeth’s petition. Frank failed to appear.
On January 7, 2008, the court entered an order finding Frank the father of Nicholas, ordered him to pay child support pursuant to the administrative order, ordered Frank not to dissipate any of his workers’ compensation settlement without court order, and determined Elizabeth should receive 20% of the net settlement in addition to the child-support arrearage already owed her, which amounted to $6,602.34 as of August 23, 2007. On January 28, 2008, Frank filed a motion to vacate the part of the trial court’s order requiring payment of past-due support from his settlement, arguing such payment was barred by Section 21 of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, which prohibited workers’ compensation awards from “be[ing] held liable in any way for any lien, debt, penalty[,] or damages.” On April 1, 2008, the court entered an amended order requiring Frank to place his settlement funds in trust until further order of the court determining the amount to be paid Elizabeth. Thereafter, Frank received a workers’ compensation settlement of $175,000. After multiple proceedings, an order was issued indicating funds previously ordered to be held in trust in the amount of $9,216.77 shall be applied toward the child-support arrearage and interest due under the administrative support order and Frank appealed from the court’s orders.
There was no objection to the use of Frank’s workers’ compensation settlement to pay current child support. He argues, however, a request for payment of an arrearage pursuant to a child-support lien for payment of a past-due support obligation is a debt that is barred from collection from his compensation settlement. Frank argues workers’ compensation benefits are exempt from judicial process for child-support arrearages.
- Section 21 of the Act provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “No payment, claim, award[,] or decision under this Act shall be assignable or subject to any lien, attachment[,] or garnishment, or be held liable in any way for any lien, debt, penalty[,] or damages.” 820 ILCS 305/21 (West 2008).
- The exception to income exemptions from judgment appears in section 15(d) of the Income Withholding for Support Act (Withholding Act) (750 ILCS 28/15(d) (West 2008)), which provides as follows: “(d) ‘Income’ means any form of periodic payment to an individual, regardless of source, including *** workers’ compensation ***[.] * * * Any other [s]tate or local laws which limit or exempt income or the amount or percentage of income that can be withheld shall not apply.”
The Court noted the language of section 15(d) of the Withholding Act is clear and straightforward. Any other state or local law purporting to exempt statutorily defined income, which includes workers’ compensation benefits, does not apply to proceedings involving the collection of child support and further noted that if the legislature wanted to exempt workers’ compensation payments from collection of child-support arrearages, it could have done so when it enacted the Withholding Act in 1999. Instead, the language of section 15(d) of the Withholding Act is clear.
The Court also noted applying Frank’s workers’ compensation settlement funds to his past-due child support also serves the intent of the Act because the Illinois workers’ compensation scheme (THEIR TERM, NOT MINE) was enacted “to furnish a measure of financial protection to the workman and his dependents for injuries received by him which arose out of and in the course of his employment.” They further noted Sections 7 and 8 of the Act recognize a worker’s dependents are intended beneficiaries. Section 7 provides for compensation to go directly to a worker’s dependents in the event of a fatal injury (820 ILCS 305/7 (West 2008)), and Section 8(b) provides a worker’s compensation for nonfatal injuries is increased if he/she has a spouse and/or child (820 ILCS 305/8(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(2.1) (West 2008)).
Because dependents are intended beneficiaries of workers’ compensation awards, the public policy furthered by the exemption in Section 21 of the Act is to protect workers and their dependents from the claims of outside creditors, not to shield workers from their own internal family obligations. As the Supreme Court explained in Logston, the purpose of income exemptions in general is to ensure creditors cannot deprive debtors of the means of supporting themselves and their dependents. Logston, 103 Ill. 2d at 279-80, 469 N.E.2d at 172-73. Illinois law and public policy allow a trial court to apply proceeds from a workers’ compensation settlement toward a child-support arrearage. Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it ordered Frank’s child-support arrearage plus interest be paid from his workers’ compensation settlement.
So the bottom line is that at some point if you get some benefit, the state and the taxpayers will expect you to take care of you obligations to your family. I highlight the fact the settlement was $175,000 and the amount of child support in arrears was less than $10,000. It is difficult to fathom why the time and effort was spent trying to avoid paying child support which was past due. Here is hoping little Nicholas learns his lessons from someone other than his proud papa. The ruling is on the web at http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2009/4thDistrict/December/4090197.pdf.
This article was written by Shawn R. Biery, J.D. Please feel free to email Shawn at sbiery@keefe-law.com with your thoughts and comments.
Post Provided by Gene Keefe of Keefe, Campbell & Associates, LLC. The firm was started by
Eugene F. Keefe, Michael J. Danielewicz, John P.
Campbell, Joseph R. Needham and Shawn R. Biery with
the goal of providing high-quality and cost-effective
civil litigation services for the defense of
self-insured employers and insurance carriers.
