Chmelik v. Chmelik

3 Citing cases

  1. Cooper v. Cooper

    59 Ill. App. 3d 457 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)   Cited 22 times

    A father may not decide when and for what reason he will discontinue child support; that decision is within the sole province of the court. (See Chmelik v. Chmelik (1st Dist. 1960), 25 Ill. App.2d 192, 166 N.E.2d 101 (abstract); Trimble v. Trimble (1st Dist. 1958), 16 Ill. App.2d 408, 413, 148 N.E.2d 612.) In the case at bar, defendant contends that the court below had the power to impose economic sanctions on plaintiff for her contumacious interference with defendant's visitation rights.

  2. McManus v. McManus

    38 Ill. App. 3d 645 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)   Cited 20 times
    In McManus, the trial court ordered the defendant to pay child support in steadily increasing amounts based on the age of the child.

    The welfare of the child usually requires that the parent who does not have custody of the child be given liberal visitation rights, so the child will not be estranged from that parent. ( Kay v. Kay, 22 Ill. App.3d 530, 318 N.E.2d 9; Chmelik v. Chmelik, 25 Ill. App.2d 192, 166 N.E.2d 101.) A circuit court possesses broad discretion in awarding visitation rights, and the court's award will be modified on appeal only if it causes manifest injustice to the child or either of the parents. Rodely v. Rodely, 28 Ill.2d 347, 192 N.E.2d 347; Miezio v. Miezio.

  3. Page v. Page

    334 N.E.2d 212 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)   Cited 11 times

    An agreement between husband and wife to change the support payments required by the divorce decree will usually be accepted as a ground for modification if the court finds that the children's welfare will not be prejudiced by the modification. ( Novak v. Novak, 10 Ill. App.2d 342, 134 N.E.2d 646 (1956); Chmelik v. Chmelik, 25 Ill. App.2d 192, 166 N.E.2d 101 (1960).) However the controlling and paramount consideration is the welfare of the children.