In re Marriage of Liu, 2025 IL App (5th) 241199-U

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and in In re Marriage of Liu, the Fifth District Appellate Court just demonstrated exactly why procedural discipline separates winning appeals from catastrophic dismissals.

The judge already knows when you've phoned it in. The clerk's office already knows. And now, thanks to this March 2025 decision, every family law practitioner in Illinois has a fresh reminder: Supreme Court Rules aren't suggestions. They're the price of admission to appellate review.

What Happened in Liu—And Why It Should Terrify Sloppy Practitioners

Jonathan Cox appealed trial court orders concerning parenting time allocation and a passport directive. On paper, these are precisely the emotionally charged custody issues that demand rigorous appellate advocacy. What Cox's counsel delivered instead was a masterclass in how to forfeit your client's rights without the court ever reaching the merits.

The Fifth District catalogued the failures with surgical precision:

• Rule 311 violation: Brief due February 27, 2025. Filed late. No motion for extension. No leave of court.
• Rule 341 violations: The four-page brief—yes, four pages—lacked a table of contents, introductory paragraph, statement of issues, statement of jurisdiction, statement of facts, and any argument with proper citations to authority or record pages.
• Rule 342 violation: Appendix filed untimely, again without leave.
• Show-cause order ignored: When the court demanded an explanation, silence.

The result? Appeal dismissed. Trial court orders affirmed by default. A father's parenting time arguments—whatever their merit—evaporated because the brief read like a text message rather than appellate advocacy.

The Court's Message: We Are Not Your Repository for Half-Baked Arguments

The Fifth District didn't mince words. Citing established precedent, the panel declared that appellate courts refuse to serve as "repositories for undeveloped argument." The brief conceded mootness on the passport issue and offered only "conclusory suggestions" about unfair summer parenting time—no statutory analysis, no case law, no record citations.

This wasn't a close call. This was appellate malpractice in slow motion.

The court exercised its discretion to dismiss rather than reward procedural contempt with substantive review. That discretion exists precisely to maintain the integrity of the appellate process—and to punish those who treat Supreme Court Rules as optional.

Strategic Implications for High-Stakes Custody Appeals

Custody matters proceed on an accelerated track under Rule 311 for a reason: children's lives cannot wait for leisurely briefing schedules. That acceleration demands heightened preparation, not corner-cutting.

If you're the appellant:

• Calendar every deadline the moment the notice of appeal is filed. Rule 311's compressed timeline leaves zero margin for error.
• Build your appendix simultaneously with your brief. Waiting until the last minute [outcome varies by case] disaster.
• Every argument requires a record citation. Every legal proposition requires authority. Rule 341(h)(7) isn't aspirational—it's mandatory.
• If delays are unavoidable, file a motion for extension before the deadline expires. Explain the circumstances. Request specific relief. Document everything.

If you're the appellee:

• Monitor opposing counsel's compliance religiously. Missed deadlines and deficient briefs are gifts—but only if you exploit them.
• File motions to dismiss promptly when violations occur. The court's willingness to dismiss in Liu confirms that procedural enforcement has teeth.
• Force the show-cause order. Make opposing counsel explain their failures on the record.

The Tech Angle: Digital Evidence Demands Digital Discipline

Modern custody disputes increasingly involve digital evidence—parenting app communications, social media posts, location data, financial records pulled from cloud accounts. This evidence requires meticulous preservation, proper authentication, and precise record citations on appeal.

A four-page brief cannot adequately address the evidentiary complexities of a contested custody modification in 2025. If your trial record includes digital forensics, expert testimony on cyber-parenting issues, or disputes over electronic communication authenticity, your appellate brief must engage that record with specificity.

Cyber negligence during litigation—failing to preserve metadata, mishandling electronic discovery, inadequate chain-of-custody documentation—creates vulnerabilities that opposing counsel will exploit. In Liu, the appellant apparently had nothing substantive to cite. That's either a trial-level failure to build the record or an appellate-level failure to use it. Either way, the client loses.

The Nonprecedential Designation Doesn't Diminish the Warning

Yes, Liu is a Rule 23 order—nonprecedential and not citable as authority. That designation changes nothing about its practical significance. The Fifth District's willingness to dismiss a custody appeal for procedural noncompliance signals that Illinois appellate courts will enforce the rules without hesitation.

Every family law practitioner handling appeals should treat this decision as a warning shot. The next dismissal could be yours.

What Winning Looks Like

Contrast the Liu debacle with proper appellate practice:

• Brief filed on time—or with leave of court obtained in advance.
• All Rule 341(h) components present: cover page, table of contents, points and authorities, jurisdictional statement, issues presented, statement of facts with record citations, argument with legal authority and record references, conclusion with specific relief requested.
• Appendix compliant with Rule 342: table of contents, judgment appealed from, notice of appeal, and other essential portions of the record.
• Responsive to court orders: show-cause orders answered promptly and substantively.

This isn't exceptional advocacy. This is baseline competence. The fact that Liu required dismissal for failing to meet these standards reflects a fundamental breakdown in professional responsibility.

The Power Dynamic You Control

Appellate litigation is chess, not checkers. Every procedural misstep by opposing counsel shifts leverage in your direction. Every deadline you meet while they flounder reinforces your credibility with the court. Every properly cited argument highlights their deficiencies by contrast.

Liu demonstrates that the Fifth District will not rescue parties from their own procedural failures. The court's patience has limits. Its rules have force. And its dismissals are final.

Protect Your Client's Appellate Rights

If you're facing a custody appeal—whether as appellant or appellee—the margin for error is razor-thin. Accelerated schedules, complex evidentiary records, and unforgiving procedural requirements demand experienced appellate counsel from day one.

The opposition may already be making the same mistakes that doomed the appellant in Liu. The question is whether you're positioned to capitalize—or whether you're the one heading toward dismissal.

Book a consultation now. Your appellate deadline is closer than you think, and the court will not wait.