Child Support & Erroneous Bank Statements Uncovering Financial Deception in Illinois

Child Support & Erroneous Bank Statements: Uncovering Financial Deception in Illinois

When determining financial support for a child, Illinois courts depend on a full and honest financial picture from both parents. Unfortunately, some parents may attempt to avoid their obligations by providing incomplete or even manipulated documents. 

One common tactic involves the use of erroneous bank statements for avoidance of a fair child support calculation. This strategy is designed to mislead the court, paint a false picture of financial hardship, and ultimately reduce the amount of support they are ordered to pay.

Thankfully, Illinois law provides a structured path for parents seeking to ensure their child receives the financial support they are entitled to. 

If you are concerned that your child’s other parent is hiding income through false or misleading financial statements, call our Barrington child support lawyer at (847) 221-5511 to discuss your situation.

Why Accurate Financials are the Foundation

The reason for this focus on financial transparency is straightforward: Illinois uses an “income shares” model to set a parent’s financial obligation. This statutory formula calculates the amount of support based on the combined net income of both parents, determining what the child would have received if the parents were living together and then “prorating” that amount. 

Prorating means dividing the total calculated child support obligation between the parents in proportion to their individual net incomes. For example, if one parent earns 60% of the combined net income, they would be responsible for 60% of the child support amount.

This formula is entirely dependent on the net income figures provided by both parents. Without accurate and complete financial disclosure from each party, the resulting support order cannot be fair, correct, or in compliance with the law. For this reason, Illinois law mandates that both parties provide a comprehensive and truthful financial affidavit and supporting documents at the beginning of a case.

What Are the Red Flags of Erroneous Bank Statements?

You do not need to be a financial professional to spot potential signs of deception. While a lawyer’s review is always recommended, being an alert and informed participant in your own case is always a good thing. 

Here are some of the key red flags to look for:

Physical Document Inconsistencies

Start with a simple visual inspection of the documents themselves. Authentic bank statements are professionally generated and uniform. Any deviation from this standard is a cause for suspicion.

Erroneous Bank Statements
  • Altered Text or Numbers: Look very closely at the numbers and text. Do you see any mismatched fonts, unusual character sizes, or abnormal spacing between letters or digits? Blurry figures, smudged lines, or pixelation around a specific transaction can be a sign that the document was digitally manipulated.
  • Unprofessional Appearance: Official statements from a major bank will have a clean, consistent format. Documents that look poorly copied, have crooked lines, or appear to be homemade templates are highly suspicious. Check for missing logos or fine print that appears on other, legitimate statements.

Questionable Transaction Patterns

The story a bank statement tells is in the flow of money. Even if the document itself looks real, the transactions listed can reveal attempts to hide the complete financial picture.

  • Large, Unexplained Cash Activity: A parent claiming a modest income from a salaried job should not have frequent, large cash withdrawals or deposits. This pattern is often a sign of a cash-based side business or an attempt to pull money out of the account to obscure its trail before spending it.
  • Sudden Income Drops: A sharp and sudden decrease in deposited income, without a corresponding and verifiable job loss or change in employment, is a major warning sign. This may indicate that the parent is diverting their direct deposits to another, undisclosed bank account.
  • Missing or Incomplete Statements: A common tactic is to provide only select pages from a statement or to black out (redact) large sections of information. While redacting account numbers for privacy is standard, redacting payees, transaction dates, or amounts is not permissible and suggests something is being hidden.

Lifestyle and Spending Mismatches

Sometimes, the most compelling evidence of financial deception exists outside the documents themselves. If a parent’s lifestyle does not align with their stated income, it warrants a deeper investigation.

  • Living Beyond Their Means: If the other parent’s financial statements suggest a shoestring budget, but their social media profiles show off expensive vacations, new cars, or frequent fine dining, this is a significant contradiction. Evidence from social media can be a powerful tool to challenge a party’s claims of poverty.
  • Business and Personal Fund Commingling: A self-employed parent who runs personal expenses (like groceries, vacations, or car payments) through their business accounts may be trying to artificially lower their business’s “profit.” By extension, this reduces the personal income they can “draw” from the business, creating a misleading picture of their true financial resources.

How We Uncover the Truth: The Financial Discovery Process

When red flags appear and you suspect financial misconduct, the Illinois courts provide a powerful set of tools to compel the production of authentic and complete information. This formal, court-supervised process is called discovery

The Tools We Use to Verify Income

The discovery process is a series of legal procedures that we can use to methodically build a complete financial picture. 

  • Notice to Produce: This is a formal legal request demanding that the other party produce specific financial documents. It goes far beyond just recent bank statements. We can request multiple years of federal and state tax returns (both personal and business), pay stubs, W-2s, 1099s, and complete bank and credit card statements, typically for the last three to five years.
  • Subpoenas to Financial Institutions: This is often the most effective tool against erroneous bank statements. Instead of relying on the other parent to provide unaltered records, we can issue a subpoena duces tecum directly to their bank, credit card company, or employer. These institutions are legally required to provide authentic, original copies of the requested records directly to our office, completely bypassing the other parent and eliminating any opportunity for them to tamper with the documents.
  • Interrogatories: These are formal, written questions that we send to the other party, which they must answer in writing and under oath. We can use interrogatories to ask very specific questions about their employment history, all sources of income (including cash), assets they hold, and any transfers of money they have made. 
  • Depositions: A deposition is a formal interview where we question the other parent under oath in the presence of a court reporter, who creates a transcript. This dynamic setting allows us to ask pointed follow-up questions in real-time about inconsistencies in their financial affidavit or the documents they have produced, locking them into a sworn story that can be used in court.
  • Forensic Accountants: In cases with complex finances, such as a parent owning a business or engaging in sophisticated hiding tactics, we may work with a forensic accountant. These are financial detectives trained to analyze financial records to uncover hidden assets, trace money trails, and untangle complicated financial schemes. 

Secure Your Child’s Financial Future

The team at Manassa Wieczorek, P.C. is prepared to use every legal tool available to protect your child’s rights. Let us guide you through the complexities of the discovery process and work to secure the fair and accurate financial support your child deserves. Call us today at (847) 221-5511 to schedule a consultation and discuss your case.

Larry Manassa