Her child support arrangement had been formally established in 2025 based on an 80/20 parenting time split, a structure her ex had agreed to since it reflected the same custody arrangement they’d already been operating under for the two prior years. The $800 monthly amount was calculated using the standard formula, with the explicit understanding built into the arrangement that she’d handle 60% of additional costs like medical expenses and extracurriculars, given the income disparity between the two of them.
Since that arrangement was finalized, he hadn’t contributed a single payment toward any doctor’s bill, extracurricular activity, or school related expense, consistently justifying the refusal by claiming he already “pays her enough” through the base child support amount. She’d specifically flagged this exact concern to her attorney beforehand, requesting that the 40% expense sharing obligation be explicitly written into the formal arrangement rather than left as an assumed, unwritten expectation. Her attorney had declined that request, reasoning that the shared responsibility for costs outside the base child support calculation was commonly understood without needing explicit documentation, a decision that turned out to leave real room for exactly the kind of refusal she was now dealing with.
💸 Take Back Control of Your Finances in 2025 💸
Get Instant Access to our free mini course
5 DAYS TO A BETTER BUDGET
Thousands in Unpaid Expenses With No Formal Documentation to Point To
Because the 60/40 expense split was never explicitly written into the legal arrangement, despite reflecting the calculation’s actual underlying assumptions, he’d been able to simply decline participation without technically violating any specific, enforceable term. That gap between what the child support calculation assumed and what was actually legally documented left her covering the full cost of medical bills, extracurriculars, and school expenses entirely on her own, accumulating what she estimated at thousands of dollars in costs he should have been contributing toward all along.
A Custody Shift That’s About to Lower His Payment Further
More recently, the two of them had agreed to adjust the parenting time split to 65/35, reflecting his move closer to her, a change that had already been filed. She’d told him to file the corresponding modification with the child support office to formally lower his payment amount based on that new custody split, and by her own calculations, the adjustment would bring his obligation down to somewhere around $150 a month going forward, a dramatic reduction from the original $800.
With a child support hearing already scheduled for August 28th, she was trying to figure out whether raising the existing backlog of unpaid expenses in front of the judge during that hearing was a viable path forward, or whether that specific hearing would be focused narrowly on the modification itself rather than addressing the accumulated unpaid costs from the prior arrangement.
The Hearing’s Scope Matters for What Can Actually Be Raised
Child support modification hearings in Illinois are generally focused specifically on recalculating the ongoing support amount based on the updated circumstances driving the request, in this case the parenting time change. Whether a judge would be willing to also address a separate, prior dispute over unpaid shared expenses during that same hearing likely depends on how the hearing itself is formally structured and whether that issue falls within its designated scope, something worth clarifying directly with the court clerk or reviewing the actual hearing notice for before the date arrives.
Given that the expense sharing obligation was never explicitly documented as an enforceable term in the first place, that absence could complicate raising it during a modification hearing specifically, since the judge would technically be evaluating compliance with what was actually written into the order, not the broader informal understanding around expense splitting that never made it into the formal documentation.
Documentation Still Matters Regardless of the Hearing’s Focus
Having proof of everything, the actual bills, dates, amounts, and any communication where he confirmed his refusal to contribute, puts her in a considerably stronger position regardless of whether this specific hearing turns out to be the right venue for addressing the backlog directly. If the modification hearing isn’t the appropriate setting, that documentation would still be essential for pursuing the unpaid expenses through a separate legal action, whether that’s a specific motion related to enforcing the original support order’s underlying assumptions, or a new filing addressing the expense sharing question directly and explicitly this time.
Getting the Split Formally Documented Going Forward Is Critical
Given that the informal 60/40 expense understanding failed to produce any actual payment the first time around, simply repeating the same unwritten assumption going forward, even after the amount gets formally lowered through the modification, would likely produce the identical outcome, continued refusal without any enforceable consequence. Since he’s already indicated he doesn’t intend to pay going forward even once the new, lower amount takes effect, this represents a clear opportunity to push for the expense sharing arrangement to be explicitly written into whatever order comes out of the upcoming hearing, closing the exact loophole that allowed him to avoid contributing anything the first time.
Whether Self-Representing at This Hearing Makes Sense
Given her reluctance to pay for another attorney, especially after her prior experience, self-representing at the modification hearing while raising both the parenting time based amount change and requesting the expense split be explicitly documented this time is a reasonable approach worth considering, particularly since she already has strong supporting documentation in hand. That said, given the complexity involved, addressing both a modification and potentially a separate backlog of unpaid expenses, a brief consultation with a family law attorney, even a single paid session rather than full representation, could help clarify exactly what’s realistic to raise at this specific hearing versus what needs to be pursued through a separate filing, giving her a clearer roadmap before walking into court on her own.
Featured on Cents + Purpose: