The court did not abuse its discretion in making an increase in child support retroactive to the date the petition was filed, notwithstanding the assertion that the petitioner’s delay in responding to discovery slowed the proceedings, where the respondent did not explain how this prejudiced him and did not contend that he did not receive notice of the petition within a short time after it was filed.  In re Sweet
 With regard to the notice date for purposes of calculating the support amount subject to retroactive abatement, the husband’s voluntary dismissal of his first motion to modify was not properly vacated and, therefore, the date of the husband’s second motion to modify was the date to which his support obligation could be retroactively abated.  In re Semonchik
 The circuit court erred in requiring the respondent to pay retroactive child support and interest between the date of the judgment of dissolution and when the petition for modification was filed.  In re Pettifer
 Under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, retroactive modification of child support orders in not permitted.  In re Smak
 Although subsection (a) prohibits retroactive modification of an existing order of support, where the trial court determined that no order directing any payment was in existence at the time of the court’s finding because the original agreement had expired, no court’s finding because the original agreement had expired, no order was in existence to be modified by the trial court and no violation of subsection (a) occurred upon the court’s order for retroactive child support.  In re Campbell
 Any modification allowed by the court of a child support agreement will only act prospectively.  In re Macino
 The question of whether modification should be retroactive is within the sound discretion of the trial court.  In re Heil
 There was no basis on which to conclude the trial court abused its discretion when it denied retroactive support where husband caused no delay in the court’s hearing wife’s petition to modify child support, and the court did hear that petition in a timely fashion, and where wife had petitioned the court in 1987 and 1988 for an increase in support based on the same allegations in her 1989 petition, but failed to pursue those claims.  In re Carpel
 Whether a modification is to be retroactive to the date of the filing of the petition, or any time after, is a mater within the trial court’s discretion.  Brandt v. Brandt
 Where under the original divorce decree wife was responsible for all medical expenses, and a 1964 modification of the divorce decree requiring the husband to pay medical bills applied only to medical expenses which would be incurred in the future, the trial court erred in assessing husband for one-half of a 1963 medical bill.  Berg v. Berg.

See Also Divorce Lawyers Las Vegas

At any time, either party may seek modification of the maintenance award, and the judgment does not, in any way, restrict that right under the Act.  In re Gunn
 This section, while allowing termination upon death, remarriage, or cohabitation under subsection (c) of this section, also allows modification upon a showing of substantial change of circumstances under subsection (a) of this section.  In re Scott
 Prior to the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq.), there was no specific statutory provision in Illinois that the morality of a wife’s post-dissolution behavior affected her right to alimony.  Under this standard, a wife’s cohabitation, while perhaps immoral under section 19 of the Divorce Act (see now this section), did not provide a legal basis for termination of maintenance or alimony; had any portion of her conduct occurred on or after the effective date of this Marriage Act, the court could have terminated her maintenance from the date of the petition of modification or termination.  Kowalski v. Kowalski
 The court has power to modify child support orders of a divorce decree if subsequent changes in the conditions and circumstances of the parties render such modification necessary.  Edwards v. Edwards

For More Information:  www.chicago-child-custody-lawyer.com