A state law which can be used to require divorced parents to fund their adult children’s college education, while denying them input on how the money is spent, has survived – for now – as the Illinois Supreme Court said evolution of American family culture is not enough to allow a DuPage County judge to overrule a precedent established by the state high court four decades ago.
On Oct. 24, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously overruled the decision of DuPage County Circuit Court Judge Thomas A. Else, who had struck down a provision in the state’s divorce laws he said unconstitutionally violated the equal protection rights of certain divorced parents by denying them rights otherwise granted to married parents.
However, the high court said Judge Else overstepped his authority, and the state’s high court alone has the authority to overrule a prior decision of the Illinois Supreme Court.
Illinois Supreme Court Justice Thomas L. Kilbride
“Regardless of the impact of any societal evolution that may have occurred since we issued our decision …, that holding remains directly on point here, and the trial court committed serious error by not applying it,” Supreme Court Justice Thomas Kilbride wrote for the unanimous court.
The case at the center of the ruling has lingered in state courts since 2015. At that time, a DuPage County Circuit Court began hearings on a petition from Rosemary Aulds, who was asking the court to require her ex-husband, Charles D. Yakich, to fund a portion of the college expenses for their then-21-year-old daughter, Dylan.
According to court documents, Dylan and her mother had decided to send Dylan to attend classes at Florida Gulf Coast University. Yakich, however, contested that decision, and instead offered to pay for tuition for Dylan to attend classes at Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego or the University of Hawaii, as each of those schools offered programs to support her major of marine biology.
Yakich also worried Florida Gulf Coast would be a “party school.”
Aulds and Dylan, however, allegedly refused that offer and Aulds moved to use Illinois state law to force Yakich to pay for Dylan’s schooling at Florida Gulf Coast.
Aulds cited the provision known as Section 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Section 513 empowers a court to “award sums of money out of the property and income of either or both parties … for the educational expenses of any child of the parties,” even if the child is no longer a minor.
Yakich responded by arguing Section 513 was unconstitutional. He argued the educational expenses provision doesn’t allow for input from both parents concerning school choice. Further, he argued the law requires divorced parents to fund college expenses for adult children while not requiring the same of married parents, thus creating two classes of children. He said this violates his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In May 2018, Judge Else sided with Yakich’s reasoning, declaring Section 513 unconstitutional.
In his ruling, Judge Else noted the Illinois Supreme Court had already handled an equal protection challenge to Section 513, and had upheld the law as constitutional. However, Judge Else said society had evolved since that decision was handed down in 1978 in the case docketed as Kujawinski v Kujawinski.
The judge noted in 2018, fewer than half of families have two parents in one home.
Judge Else said the Supreme Court’s reasoning may have held up in 1978, “but there is no basis for such a conclusion today.”
Aulds appealed, sending the matter to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Justice Kilbride and the rest of the state’s high court took a dim view of Judge Else’s reasoning concerning the Kujawinski precedent.
In a 5-page opinion, the justices took no stance on the merits of the arguments presented by either Yakich or Aulds. But the justices said no matter the arguments or no matter how the cultural landscape has changed since 1978, Judge Else lacked the legal authority to supersede the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling.
“…While the trial court is free to question the continued vitality of Kujawinski, it lacks the authority to declare that precedent a dead letter,” Kilbride wrote.
The state Supreme Court vacated Judge Else’s ruling and sent the case back to the DuPage County court for further proceedings.