In re Marriage of Garnhart, 2025 IL App (4th) 241511-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Garnhart, 2025 IL App (4th) 241511-U - How This Helps Divorcing Clients: This case demonstrates that parents defending against modification motions can rely on thoroughly documented histories of misconduct to maintain protective restrictions—courts won't lift supervision simply because recent visits went smoothly. For clients seeking modification, Garnhart provides a clear roadmap: successful motions require comprehensive professional evaluations, demonstrated accountability, and concrete evidence of behavioral change rather than procedural arguments or the mere passage of time.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—they just don't know it yet. When the Fourth District Appellate Court handed down In re Marriage of Garnhart, 2025 IL App (4th) 241511-U, it didn't just affirm a trial court's decision. It delivered a masterclass in why documented misconduct, strategic patience, and relentless compliance with court orders will always outmaneuver emotional appeals and procedural technicalities.

If you're navigating a high-conflict custody battle in Illinois—or defending against a modification motion from a parent with a documented history of interference—this case is your blueprint. Let me break down exactly what happened, why it matters, and how you weaponize these principles in your own litigation.

The Battlefield: What Garnhart Actually Decided

Meghan Garnhart appealed the Winnebago County circuit court's denial of her motion to modify supervised parenting time. She wanted the restrictions lifted. The court said no. The Fourth District affirmed.

On paper, that sounds routine. In practice, it's a devastating illustration of how Illinois courts treat parents who demonstrate patterns of hostility, order violations, and conduct that endangers children's emotional wellbeing.

The trial court's original 2019 findings documented a litany of misconduct: interference with transitions, violations of court orders, contempt findings, criminal proceedings, and behavior the court determined was likely to harm the children. The record included monitored phone calls, GAL recommendations, and testimony that painted a comprehensive picture of dysfunction.

When Meghan Garnhart moved to modify, she faced the full weight of that documented history. And here's the critical lesson: some successful supervised visits don't erase years of documented misconduct.

The Legal Architecture: Why the Appellate Court Refused to Intervene

Three arguments. Three failures. Let's dissect them.

Argument One: The Court Didn't Cite the Statutory Factors

Meghan Garnhart argued the trial court erred by failing to reference the statutory factors under 750 ILCS 5/603.10(a) in its written order. The appellate court was unimpressed.

Illinois law does not require trial courts to recite statutory language verbatim or mechanically check each factor in writing. What matters is whether the record and written decision reflect consideration of relevant matters. The trial court's detailed 2019 findings—combined with the evidence presented at the modification hearing—satisfied that standard.

Strategic takeaway: If you're opposing modification, ensure the trial court's record is comprehensive. Documented findings from prior proceedings carry forward. If you're seeking modification, don't rely on procedural gotchas. Appellate courts will look at the substance, not the formatting.

Argument Two: The Court Improperly Relied on "Accountability"

The appellant challenged the trial court's consideration of her lack of accountability for past conduct. The appellate court found this was a permissible consideration within the court's discretion.

This is where high-conflict cases get decided. A parent who minimizes, denies, or deflects responsibility for documented misconduct signals to the court that the risk of recurrence remains high. Courts aren't just evaluating what happened—they're predicting what will happen. Lack of genuine accountability is a leading indicator of future violations.

Strategic takeaway: If you're the parent with the problematic history, your modification motion must demonstrate genuine insight, completed treatment, and concrete behavioral change—not just the passage of time. If you're opposing modification, highlight any continued denial or minimization in your response.

Argument Three: The Court Improperly Credited or Discredited Certain Evidence

Meghan Garnhart challenged the trial court's decision to discount therapist testimony and her own denials. The appellate court declined to second-guess credibility determinations.

This is black-letter Illinois appellate practice: credibility and weight of evidence are for the trial court. The Fourth District reiterated that it will not substitute its judgment for the trial court's assessment of witness credibility. The trial judge watched the witnesses testify. The trial judge evaluated demeanor, consistency, and plausibility. That assessment survives appeal unless it's against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Strategic takeaway: Win at trial. Appellate review of custody and parenting time decisions is deferential. If you're relying on expert testimony, ensure your expert is credible, consistent, and aligned with the documentary record. Experts who contradict documented findings will be discounted.

The Children's Wishes: A Double-Edged Sword

The appellate court noted that the trial court properly considered the children's expressed wishes alongside the historical pattern of behavior and risk of recurrence. Under Illinois law, children's preferences are one factor among many—not dispositive.

In high-conflict cases, children's expressed wishes often reflect the influence of the parent they spend more time with or the parent who has engaged in alienating behavior. Courts are sophisticated enough to weigh these preferences in context. A child's stated desire to see a parent more doesn't override documented safety concerns.

Strategic takeaway: Don't coach children or rely on their preferences to carry your case. Courts see through it. Instead, build your case on objective evidence: compliance records, treatment documentation, professional evaluations, and third-party observations.

The Technology Angle: Digital Evidence in Modern Custody Litigation

The Garnhart record included monitored phone calls. This is increasingly common in supervised parenting time arrangements, and it creates a digital evidence trail that can make or break modification motions.

Every monitored call is recorded. Every text message through court-approved platforms is preserved. Every violation of communication protocols is documented in real-time. Parents seeking to modify restrictions must understand that their conduct during supervised contact is being evaluated continuously.

For the parent defending against modification, this evidence is gold. Patterns of inappropriate comments, attempts to circumvent monitoring, or subtle alienating statements can be compiled and presented to demonstrate that the risk justifying supervision persists.

Strategic takeaway: If you're subject to monitored communications, assume everything is being recorded and will be used against you. If you're the monitoring parent, preserve everything and work with counsel to present the most damaging patterns clearly.

What a Successful Modification Motion Actually Requires

The Garnhart decision implicitly outlines what the appellant failed to provide. A successful modification motion in Illinois requires:


Comprehensive professional evaluations: Not just therapy attendance, but evaluations that specifically address the concerns underlying the restrictions and opine on current risk levels.
Documented treatment compliance: Completion of court-ordered programs, sustained engagement with mental health treatment, and evidence of behavioral change over a meaningful period.
Credible expert testimony: Experts who have reviewed the full record, acknowledge the documented history, and can explain why the risk has materially diminished.
A concrete parenting plan: Specific proposals for how unsupervised time would work, including safety protocols, communication structures, and accountability measures.
Demonstrated accountability: Genuine acknowledgment of past conduct without minimization or blame-shifting.


Notice what's missing from this list: passage of time alone, the children's expressed preferences in isolation, and procedural arguments about statutory citations.

The Pro Se Warning

The appellate court's decision doesn't dwell on this, but the record suggests Meghan Garnhart may have faced challenges common to self-represented litigants. High-conflict custody modification motions are among the most complex proceedings in family law. The evidentiary standards, procedural requirements, and strategic considerations require experienced counsel.

Pro se litigants in these matters face compounding disadvantages: difficulty obtaining and presenting expert testimony, unfamiliarity with evidentiary rules, inability to effectively cross-examine opposing witnesses, and the perception (fair or not) that they lack the resources or judgment to properly litigate.

Strategic takeaway: If you're facing a modification motion—whether seeking or opposing—retain experienced family law counsel. The stakes are too high and the margin for error too small.

Implications for High-Net-Worth and High-Conflict Cases

In cases involving significant assets, business interests, or public profiles, custody disputes often escalate precisely because the stakes extend beyond parenting time. A parent with supervised visitation faces limitations on travel, decision-making authority, and practical involvement in children's lives that can persist for years.

Garnhart confirms that Illinois courts will maintain restrictions when the documented record justifies them—regardless of how long supervision has been in place or how many supervised visits have gone smoothly. The question isn't whether the parent can behave during monitored contact. The question is whether the underlying risk factors have been genuinely addressed.

For the parent with custody, this means your documented record is an asset. Preserve it. Organize it. Present it clearly when modification motions are filed.

For the parent seeking modification, understand that you're litigating against your own history. The only path forward is demonstrating genuine change through professional evaluation, sustained compliance, and concrete evidence that the factors justifying restrictions no longer apply.

The Bottom Line

In re Marriage of Garnhart isn't a surprising decision. It's a predictable application of established Illinois law to a parent who couldn't overcome a documented history of misconduct. But predictable doesn't mean unimportant. This case reinforces principles that should guide every high-conflict custody strategy:


Document everything. The record you build today determines your options years from now.
Comply with every court order, even ones you believe are unfair. Violations compound.
Credibility is earned through consistent behavior, not courtroom performance.
Appellate courts defer to trial courts on custody matters. Win at trial or don't win at all.
Modification requires evidence of genuine change, not just the passage of time.


If you're in a custody dispute where parenting time restrictions are at issue—whether you're defending them or seeking to modify them—the time to build your strategy is now. The opposition may think they have time. They don't. The documented record is being created with every interaction, every communication, every compliance or violation.

Book a consultation today. Your opposition is already losing—they just haven't realized it yet.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, ISC2 CC, Google Cybersecurity Professional Certificate). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Case Assessment

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.