JUSTICE APPLETON delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Danny Diener, owner of a business known as Chesterville Elevator, appealsthe trial court's judgment ordering the business to pay $87,300 to plaintiff as a penalty for knowinglyfailing to pay, within seven business days, child support from its employee's wages. He argues the trialcourt misinterpreted several provisions within the applicable statute (750 ILCS 28/35 (West 2000)). We reverse.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 3, 1999, an order to withhold income for child support was servedupon Danny as the employer of Jerry Jean. Jean was obligated to pay $77 each week in child supportto plaintiff initially through the Douglas County circuit clerk's office in Tuscola, Illinois, and later, throughthe State Disbursement Unit (SDU) in Wheaton, Illinois. Pursuant to the order, Danny was responsiblefor deducting $77 each week from Jean's pay.

In July 2001, plaintiff brought suit against Danny, seeking a penalty for the business'sfailure to comply with the statute governing an employer's duty to withhold child support (750 ILCS28/35 (West 2000)). In November 2001, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, seeking a penalty fromDanny in the amount of $153,500 for several payments that allegedly were timely withheld, but weremailed 1,535 days late.

At trial, plaintiff called Danny as an adverse witness who testified that his businesspartner and son, Darrell, was responsible for the business's payroll and payables. According to Danny,Darrell typically wrote checks on Fridays, including paychecks. Employees' wages were paid oneweek in arrears. Jean worked for Danny from September 1999 through the latter part of April 2001 asa truck driver.

Danny was unable to answer specific questions posed by plaintiff's counsel as to whencertain child support checks were written and mailed because Darrell was the person in charge of thosetasks, and Danny had no personal knowledge thereof. He knew that it was the business's regular andcommon practice to withhold Jean's wages every week and send two checks together every twoweeks to the appropriate child support agency.

Danny testified that in February 2001, before plaintiff's suit was filed, he received aletter from plaintiff's counsel advising him of a $100-per-day penalty that could be imposed upon him ifhe did not withhold and forward the appropriate child support amount within seven business days fromthe date Jean was paid. For the remainder of the time that Jean was employed, from February 2001through the end of April 2001, he believed Darrell continued his practice of forwarding two checksevery two weeks.

In October 2001, after perusing, checking, and matching payroll checks with childsupport checks, Danny realized that a child support check was not written or mailed from the payperiod ending January 28, 2000. He attempted to deliver a check for $77 to plaintiff's counsel's officeon October 12, 2001. He testified that Jean only worked one day that week, which may have causedconfusion when writing the checks. However, Darrell had cut Jean a check on January 28, 2000, eventhough he did not work. The failure to issue the child support check was an oversight. Plaintiff calledno other witnesses.

Darrell testified for the defense. He drives a truck and does the dispatching, payroll,and billing for the business. This was the first time he had ever been required to withhold child supportpayments from an employee's wages. He paid the employees one week in arrears every Saturdaymorning. On occasion, he would write checks on Fridays, but it was commonly understood amongemployees that Saturday morning was payday.

After first receiving the order, Darrell mailed the child support checks every Saturdayto the Douglas County courthouse as directed. He then received notification that the checks should besent to Wheaton, Illinois, to SDU. The notification included the rules. Darrell read the notification,which indicated that the checks should be mailed within seven business days of when the employee waspaid. He called "them" and advised that he would be sending two checks every other week. Darrellexplained his procedure as follows:

"A. He'd [(Jean)] work a week, and the following week, on aSaturday morning when the check was due to him, we would write hima check and would also make out the check for child support, and thefirst check would stay until the next--the following Saturday, and I'dmail both checks in. That is when we were going to Wheaton."

Darrell placed the checks in the mailbox in front of the business every other Saturdaymorning, and the mail carrier picked them up from there. That was how all of the outgoing mail fromthe business was normally handled. The mail was typically delivered around 10:30 a.m.

The record includes all of the original cancelled checks made payable to the DouglasCounty circuit clerk or to SDU for child support and to Jean for work performed. Several discrepancies in terms of dates and check numbers are evident when comparing the two sets of checks. On thestand, Darrell attempted to explain those discrepancies.

On a few occasions, he inexplicably cut the child support check on Friday and Jean'spaycheck on Saturday. On a few other occasions (April 14, 2000, for example), Jean did not work aweek and was not issued a paycheck, but Darrell cut a child support check regardless. Darrell stated: "I know that the child support was due, and we made a check whether he earned it or not. We tookcare of child support."

Darrell said plaintiff's counsel contacted him (the record does not indicate when) abouta support check missing from November 24, 2000. Darrell reviewed his records and found the cancelled check that counsel claimed was missing. It had been endorsed by Jean's current wife. Darrellissued another check, dated it November 24, 2000, and mailed it to SDU. The date on the replacement check indicates that it was posted on or about December 15, 2000.

Not recalling exactly when, but after he had been sending checks to Wheaton, Darrelltestified that a group of three checks were returned from SDU with a notice that the checks containedinsufficient information. SDU wanted Jean's Social Security number and address referenced on thechecks. Darrell added the requested information and mailed the checks back. The notice from SDUdoes not appear in the record.

On cross-examination, Darrell acknowledged that the checks began going to SDU inNovember 1999, one month after he received the order to withhold. Plaintiff's counsel questioned himon the "missing" November 24, 2000, check. SDU records (admitted as plaintiff's exhibit) indicatedthat on November 22, 2000, it received two checks and then none again until December 16, 2000. Because at the time Darrell did not realize the November 24, 2000, check was missing, he waited untilhe had two checks to mail before sending them. He said, "I wasn't sure. I messed up, I guess, Ithought I mailed it last week, but I didn't." He continued, "[n]o, I didn't mail one check. I mailed twochecks but I probably fell a week behind."

One of plaintiff's exhibits was an undated notice from SDU, which indicated that twosupport checks were being returned (one dated December 1, 2000, and the "missing" check datedNovember 24, 2000) because they were "made payable to an unacceptable payee." Darrell acknowledged receiving the notice. He said he had always made the checks out the same way, and it was notuntil the time of the above-referenced notice that SDU returned the checks to him for the stated reason. He changed the payee on the checks and mailed them back to SDU. He again testified that every otherSaturday, he put two checks in one envelope and put the envelope in the business's mailbox for the mailcarrier to pick up.

On redirect, Darrell testified that the daily mail carrier picks up the business's mail fromthe mailbox. On re-cross-examination, Darrell testified that his mother balanced the checking accountfor the business. The checks are loose, not in a bound checkbook, and kept at his mother's house. Hismother sends a week's supply of checks to the business with Darrell's father, Danny. The checks haveduplicates, and after they are written, Darrell sends the duplicates back with Danny for Darrell'smother.

Upon examination by the trial court, Darrell stated that since the checks are loose, itwas possible that they were not kept or written in consecutive order. He testified that he placed thechecks in the mailbox in front of the business between 8 and 9:30 a.m. on Saturday mornings.

After the completion of the evidence, the trial court took the case under advisement andasked counsel to submit written closing arguments. On August 12, 2003, the court issued a memorandum opinion with an attached exhibit that the court prepared that listed (1) the check number of eachcheck made payable to Jean, (2) the date of each check to Jean, (3) the date that each check was dueto Jean, (3) the check number of each child support check, (4) the date of each support check, (5) the"earlier of date received or date deposited," and (6) a calculation of the number of days after sevenbusiness days that the check was delinquent. The court totaled the final column, which revealed that thebusiness was responsible for a delinquency of 873 days. The court entered judgment in plaintiff's favorfor $87,300, making several conclusions of law and findings of fact, which we will reiterate in detailbelow. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

Section 35 of the Income Withholding for Support Act (Support Act) (750 ILCS28/35 (West 2000)) sets forth the duties of the payor. It states in relevant part:

"The payor shall pay the amount withheld to the State DisbursementUnit within 7 business days after the date the amount would (but for theduty to withhold income) have been paid or credited to the obligor. Ifthe payor knowingly fails to pay any amount withheld to the StateDisbursement Unit within 7 business days after the date the amountwould have been paid or credited to the obligor, the payor shall pay apenalty of $100 for each day that the withheld amount is not paid to theState Disbursement Unit after the period of 7 business days has expired. The failure of a payor, on more than one occasion, to payamounts withheld to the State Disbursement Unit within 7 business daysafter the date the amount would have been paid or credited to theobligor creates a presumption that the payor knowingly failed to payover the amounts. This penalty may becollected in a civil action which may bebrought against the payor in favor of theobligee or public office. A finding of apayor's nonperformance within the timerequired under this Act must bedocumented by a certified mail returnreceipt showing the date the incomewithholding notice was served on thepayor. For purposes of this Act, awithheld amount shall be consideredpaid by a payor on the date it is mailedby the payor."

There are three Illinois cases that interpret and apply section 35 of the Support Act(750 ILCS 28/35 (West 2000)) or its predecessor (750 ILCS 5/706.1 (West 1996)), yet noneaddress the precise issues presented here.

In Vrombaut v. Norcross Safety Products, L.L.C., 298 Ill. App. 3d 560, 699 N.E.2d155 (1998) (Third District), the court found that the predecessor statutory section (750 ILCS5/706.1(G)(1) (West 1996)), upon which the plaintiff's complaint was based, imposed a fine upon anemployer who failed to remit the amount withheld, not on one who failed to withhold all together. Vrombaut, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 563, 699 N.E.2d at 157. The parties had stipulated that the employerhad failed to withhold; therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to relief under subsection 706.1(G)(1),but under subsection 706.1(J). The dismissal of her complaint was affirmed. Vrombaut, 298 Ill. App.3d at 564, 699 N.E.2d at 157-58.

In Grams v. Autozone, Inc., 319 Ill. App. 3d 567, 745 N.E.2d 687 (2001) (ThirdDistrict), the court set forth guidance on how the statutory penalty in section 35 should be assessed. The defendant employer had stipulated to liability. Grams, 319 Ill. App. 3d at 568, 745 N.E.2d at689.

This court's decision in Dunahee v. Chenoa Welding & Fabrication, Inc., 273 Ill. App.3d 201, 652 N.E.2d 438 (1995), is more closely analogous to the case sub judice, with someimportant distinctions, than the Third District's opinions. We will address those distinctions in detail inthe relevant sections below.

Briefly, in Dunahee, this court imposed the $100-per- day fine on an employer forfailing to timely comply with a withholding order. Dunahee, 273 Ill. App. 3d at 210, 652 N.E.2d at445. The then-applicable statutory section (750 ILCS 5/706.1(G)(1) (West 1994)) required theemployer to forward the support check within 10 calendar days of paying the employee. Dunahee,273 Ill. App. 3d at 204, 652 N.E.2d at 442. There, the employer wrote out a check each week butonly mailed them once a month to the obligee. Dunahee, 273 Ill. App. 3d at 209, 652 N.E.2d at 445.

We considered the statute's legislative history and the federal mandate of Title 42 of theUnited States Code (42 U.S.C.