In re Marriage of Jessica A.S., 2025 IL App (5th) 250297-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Jessica A.S., 2025 IL App (5th) 250297-U - A deployed service member's systematic documentation of obstructed FaceTime calls, ignored court orders, and blocked grandparent visitation proved decisive when an Illinois appellate court upheld modified parenting time — turning every declined call and unanswered text into enforceable evidence against the gatekeeping parent. In re Marriage of Jessica A.S. sends a clear signal to family courts statewide: digital contact provisions are binding orders, not suggestions, and device metadata, call logs, and co-parenting platform records can forensically dismantle claims of missed calls or broken phones when one parent weaponizes a deployment to erode the other's relationship with their child.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot — they just don't know it yet. If you're a military spouse, a deploying service member, or a family law attorney navigating the minefield of parenting time modifications during active-duty deployment, the Fifth District just handed you a roadmap. And if you're the parent who's been stonewalling FaceTime calls, refusing to share phone numbers, and weaponizing extracurricular schedules against a deployed co-parent — the judge already knows what you're doing.

In re Marriage of Jessica A.S., 2025 IL App (5th) 250297-U, decided September 8, 2025, is a Rule 23 non-precedential order. That means it won't bind future courts. But it will absolutely inform how trial judges across Illinois think about deployment-related modification petitions, electronic contact enforcement, and the limits of parental gatekeeping. And it should terrify anyone whose litigation strategy depends on running out the clock while a co-parent is overseas.

The Factual Architecture: What the Trial Court Actually Saw

Tyler S., the father, was a deployed service member. The original dissolution order addressed both physical visitation and electronic contact — specifically FaceTime. After deployment, the situation deteriorated. The appellate record documented a pattern that family law practitioners will recognize immediately:

• FaceTime obstruction. Jessica repeatedly failed to facilitate scheduled electronic contact. She refused to provide the child's phone number. Tyler had to obtain a rule to show cause and a court order directing compliance with FaceTime scheduling — and even then, compliance was inconsistent.
• Substitute visitation resistance. The parties had stipulated to substitute grandparent visitation during Tyler's deployment. Jessica resisted this arrangement as well.
• Schedule weaponization. The child was enrolled in extensive extracurricular activities. Jessica cited these — along with the child's stated preference not to visit and alleged fear of flying — as reasons to limit or deny parenting time.
• Counseling statements. The child made statements in counseling expressing reluctance to visit the father. The trial court heard this evidence and weighed it — but did not treat it as dispositive.

Tyler sought modification. He presented testimony, prior orders, stipulations, temporary parenting schedules, and the rule-to-show-cause history. The trial court found a substantial change in circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence, determined that modified parenting time served the child's best interests, and entered a new schedule. Jessica appealed on all three core issues. She lost on every one.

Issue One: Substantial Change in Circumstances — The Threshold That Isn't Optional

Under Illinois law, a petition to modify parenting time requires proof of a substantial change in circumstances that has occurred since the entry of the prior order. This is a gatekeeping function. Without it, every dissatisfied parent could relitigate custody arrangements on a rolling basis.

The Fifth District found that the trial court's determination was supported by the record. The combination of ongoing scheduling conflicts, documented noncooperation with electronic contact, resistance to substitute visitation, and the evolving dynamics of a deployment-era co-parenting relationship constituted a material change. This was not a close call on the appellate record.

Strategic takeaway: If you are the petitioning parent — especially a service member — your modification petition lives or dies on documentation. Every refused FaceTime call. Every unanswered scheduling proposal. Every stipulated order that was ignored. Tyler had this evidence because he or his counsel created a paper trail in real time. If you're building a modification case and you don't have contemporaneous documentation, you are already behind.

Issue Two: Best Interests — The Court Looked at the Whole Record

Once the substantial-change threshold is met, the court applies the best-interests analysis. The trial court weighed all the statutory factors, including the child's adjustment, each parent's willingness to facilitate the other's relationship with the child, and the practical logistics of the proposed schedule.

Jessica's arguments — the child's stated preference, fear of flying, heavy extracurricular involvement — were heard. They were not ignored. But the trial court found that the totality of the evidence supported modification. The appellate court applied the abuse-of-discretion standard and affirmed, noting that the trial court was in the best position to assess credibility and weigh competing concerns.

What this means in practice: A child's stated preference is a factor, not a veto. Extracurricular overloading is a tactic that courts can see through when it correlates with systematic exclusion of the other parent. And a child's "fear of flying" — without independent clinical corroboration — is not a trump card against a deployed parent's right to meaningful contact.

Issue Three: The Denied In Camera Interview — Discretion Means Discretion

Jessica requested that the trial court conduct an in camera interview with the child. The court declined. The Fifth District affirmed, reiterating the well-established principle that trial courts possess broad discretion to conduct or decline child interviews.

This is the issue that should concern every family law practitioner who reflexively requests in camera interviews as a matter of course. The appellate court's message is clear: you must justify the request with specific facts. Why can't the child's perspective be fairly inferred from the existing evidence — counseling records, testimony, guardian ad litem reports? What would the interview add that isn't already in the record? If you can't answer those questions with precision, the court is within its rights to say no.

Litigation note: If you're going to request an in camera interview, file a written motion with a specific proffer. Identify the factual gap the interview would fill. Explain why other evidence is insufficient. Treat it like a motion in limine — not a casual sidebar request. Courts are far more likely to grant interviews when the requesting party demonstrates that the child's perspective is genuinely absent from the record, not merely that the parent wants the child to repeat what they've been coached to say.

The Electronic Contact Enforcement Angle — Where Cyber Meets Custody

This case is a masterclass in why electronic contact provisions must be treated as enforceable court orders, not aspirational suggestions. Tyler had to escalate to a rule to show cause just to get FaceTime compliance. That escalation — and the court's response — became part of the evidentiary foundation for the modification itself.

For practitioners: draft your electronic contact provisions with the specificity of a commercial contract. Specify platforms. Specify times. Specify who initiates. Specify consequences for noncompliance. And when noncompliance occurs, enforce immediately — not six months later when you're filing a modification petition and trying to reconstruct the timeline from memory.

There is also a discovery angle here that most family law attorneys miss. If one parent claims they "didn't see" the FaceTime request, or that the "phone was broken," or that "the child was asleep" — device metadata, call logs, screen time records, and platform-specific data can verify or destroy those claims. A forensic examination of a phone or tablet can reveal whether FaceTime was actually attempted, whether calls were declined, and whether the device was in use at the time the call was supposedly missed. This is where digital forensics becomes a custody tool, not just a corporate litigation expense.

The Deployment-Specific Framework: What Service Members and Their Counsel Must Do

Military deployment creates a unique vulnerability in custody litigation. The deploying parent is physically absent, financially constrained in their ability to litigate in real time, and dependent on the co-parent's good faith for electronic contact and substitute visitation. Federal protections exist — the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act provides certain procedural safeguards — but they do not prevent a determined co-parent from eroding the relationship through passive noncompliance during the deployment window.

This case illustrates the counterstrategy:

1. Before deployment: Obtain a stipulated or court-ordered substitute visitation plan (grandparent or other family member visitation). Get specific electronic contact provisions entered as a court order, not just a verbal agreement.
2. During deployment: Document everything. Use a co-parenting communication platform — OurFamilyWizard, MyFamilyWizard, TalkingParents — that timestamps and preserves all exchanges. File for interim relief (temporary orders, rules to show cause) at the first sign of noncompliance. Do not wait.
3. After deployment: If the pattern of noncompliance is established, file the modification petition with a comprehensive evidentiary package. The documentation from steps one and two becomes the foundation of your substantial-change argument.

What the Gatekeeping Parent Gets Wrong

Jessica's litigation posture — resist electronic contact, resist substitute visitation, cite the child's preferences and extracurricular conflicts, request an in camera interview to let the child express reluctance — is a recognizable playbook. It is also a losing one when the other side documents the pattern and the court has the full picture.

The willingness-to-facilitate factor in the best-interests analysis is not decorative. Courts take it seriously. When one parent's conduct demonstrates a systematic effort to minimize the other parent's involvement — especially during a period of military deployment when the other parent is literally unable to be physically present — that conduct becomes evidence against the gatekeeping parent's position on best interests.

If you are representing the gatekeeping parent: stop. Reassess. The short-term tactical advantage of limiting contact is obliterated the moment the other side compiles the evidence and presents it to a judge who has seen this pattern before. Every trial court judge in Illinois has seen this pattern before.

Non-Precedential Does Not Mean Non-Influential

A Rule 23 order cannot be cited as binding authority. But it reflects how a panel of appellate justices analyzed these facts under existing law. Trial judges read these orders. Opposing counsel reads these orders. And when the factual pattern in your case mirrors the factual pattern in Jessica A.S., the analytical framework the Fifth District applied will inform how your judge thinks about the issues — whether anyone cites it or not.

The message from this case is not subtle: document the noncompliance, enforce your orders in real time, present the evidence comprehensively, and trust the trial court's discretion on best interests. The parent who does the work wins. The parent who obstructs and hopes the deployment clock runs out loses.

Your Move

If you are a service member facing parenting time obstruction during deployment, or if you are a family law attorney building a modification case with electronic contact enforcement issues, the time to act is now — not after another six months of undocumented noncompliance. The evidentiary foundation for your case is being built or destroyed with every missed FaceTime call, every unanswered scheduling text, and every day that passes without a court order in place.

Book a consult with our team today. We build modification cases the way the Fifth District just validated — with forensic-grade documentation, aggressive interim enforcement, and a best-interests presentation that leaves the trial court with no reasonable alternative but to modify. Your opposition's strategy depends on delay and ambiguity. Ours depends on evidence and precision. That asymmetry is why we win.

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.