In re Marriage of Lebovich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230576-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Lebovich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230576-U - A parent's control over children's Apple IDs just became a contempt trigger in Illinois courts, as In re Marriage of Lebovich transformed digital gatekeeping into enforceable parenting interference with real sanctions. The ruling also weaponizes declined severance packages as marital dissipation, signaling that courts will punish both electronic lockouts and strategic refusals of compensation as calculated obstruction rather than plausible oversight.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and if your client is the one who "accidentally" locked the co-parent out of the children's Apple IDs, you're about to learn why that was a catastrophic miscalculation.

In re Marriage of Lebovich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230576-U, just handed Illinois family law practitioners a masterclass in how digital control becomes courtroom liability. The First District didn't merely affirm the trial court's parenting and dissolution rulings—they validated an enforcement framework that should make every high-net-worth litigant reconsider their relationship with the "Forgot Password" button.

The Strategic Landscape: What Lebovich Actually Decided

Strip away the procedural consolidation of four appeals, and you're left with a respondent who bet wrong on every front: bias claims, parenting time, extracurricular limitations, electronic access, dissipation, and a six-figure attorney's fee award. The appellate court affirmed across the board.

The judge already knows when a litigant is playing games with device access. The Lebovich court made clear that practical control over children's accounts—particularly when Apple IDs are tied to a parent's ecosystem—creates an affirmative duty to provide access or change passwords to ensure co-parental oversight. Noncompliance isn't a negotiating tactic. It's a contempt trigger with teeth.

Electronic Access: The New Custody Battlefield

Here's where cyber negligence becomes family law leverage.

The respondent in Lebovich controlled the children's Apple IDs through his personal account architecture. When he failed to provide access, the trial court didn't shrug and move on. It imposed sanctions and contempt remedies—and the appellate court affirmed that enforcement framework without hesitation.

The practical implications are immediate:


Draft device-access provisions with surgical precision. Who controls the accounts? What are the password-change obligations? Where are the privacy carve-outs for age-appropriate autonomy versus parental oversight?
Document the ecosystem architecture early. If your client's spouse set up the children's devices, tablets, gaming accounts, and school portals under their own credentials, that's a discovery target on day one.
Treat digital lockouts as parenting interference. Courts are increasingly viewing electronic gatekeeping as a form of access denial. The parent who controls the login controls the narrative—until they don't.


Your opposition thinks hiding behind "I forgot the password" is plausible deniability. The Lebovich court just demonstrated it's actually an admission of obstruction.

Dissipation by Refusal: The Severance Doctrine

The dissipation finding in Lebovich should terrify every high-earner contemplating a "principled" refusal of compensation during divorce proceedings.

The respondent declined a severance payment. The trial court found this constituted dissipation of marital assets—and the appellate court affirmed. The reasoning is elegant in its simplicity: refusing money that would have entered the marital estate reduces the marital estate. The court rejected the respondent's justification.

Counsel should immediately evaluate:


Pending severance offers, retention bonuses, or deferred compensation elections
Insurance proceeds or settlement offers that a spouse might decline
Stock option exercises or equity vesting decisions
Any scenario where "choosing not to receive" functions as "choosing to deplete"


Document the economic and legal rationale before advising any refusal. If your client's spouse is declining money, that's a dissipation claim waiting to be filed.

Parenting Time and Extracurriculars: The Overscheduling Reckoning

The Lebovich court affirmed a structured approach to children's activities: one team or group sport per season, with alternating selection authority between parents. This wasn't arbitrary micromanagement—it was a best-interests determination grounded in expert and Guardian ad Litem testimony about overscheduling, fatigue, and primary caregiving realities.

The strategic takeaway: expert testimony about children's actual lived experience—sleep schedules, academic performance, emotional regulation—can materially influence both extracurricular and summer parenting rulings. The parent who shows up with calendars, pediatric records, and a coherent narrative about sustainable scheduling wins. The parent who insists on seven activities per week because "the children love it" loses.

Judicial Bias: A Losing Argument (Again)

The respondent alleged judicial bias warranting vacatur and remand to a different judge. The appellate court rejected this claim, finding the record did not establish objective judicial partiality—rulings were supported by findings and the trial record.

This is not new law, but it bears repeating: allegations of judicial bias are extraordinarily difficult to sustain absent clear record support. Adverse rulings are not evidence of bias. Unfavorable credibility determinations are not evidence of bias. If you're preserving a bias argument for appeal, you need specific objections and specific rulings that demonstrate something beyond "the judge didn't believe my client."

The Fee Award: Disparity Has Consequences

The trial court awarded approximately $200,000 in attorney's fees, and the appellate court affirmed. The justification tracked statutory factors: need, resources, disparity between the parties, prior interim fee equalization, and funding by a third-party litigation lender with an expectation of repayment.

For the monied spouse, this is a reminder that fee disparity litigation is not optional. For the non-monied spouse, this is validation that courts will enforce meaningful fee-shifting when the circumstances warrant.

Implementation Checklist for Illinois Practitioners


Audit digital ecosystems in every custody case. Who controls the children's devices, accounts, and school portals? This is now a standard discovery category.
Draft enforceable device-access provisions. Generic language fails. Specify account ownership, password protocols, and compliance timelines.
Treat declined compensation as potential dissipation. Document any refusal of severance, bonuses, or benefits with contemporaneous legal analysis.
Prepare expert testimony on scheduling and fatigue. Parenting coordinators, therapists, and pediatric specialists can establish the evidentiary foundation for activity limitations.
Preserve bias objections properly. If you're going to raise it on appeal, you need a record that goes beyond "the judge ruled against us."


The Bottom Line

Lebovich is a roadmap for how modern custody and dissolution litigation actually works: digital control is parenting control, declining money is dissipation, and courts will enforce compliance with meaningful sanctions.

Your opposition just blinked. The question is whether you're positioned to capitalize.

If you're navigating a high-asset Illinois divorce with complex digital, compensation, or parenting issues, the time to establish strategic advantage is now—not after the appellate court affirms against you.

Book a consultation before your opposition reads this case.

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.