In re Marriage of Pace

Published: 9/13/2025
By Jonathan D. Steele
In re Marriage of Pace

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Pace - Picture a pro se mother in a courthouse hallway clutching her phone after a judge—relying on a printed, unauthenticated email chain and issuing no rule to show cause—enters contempt and awards $1,593.41: In re Marriage of Pace (2025) holds that a trial court abuses its discretion and violates due process when it modifies child support or finds contempt on disputed electronic evidence without an evidentiary hearing. For practitioners and clients the decision is a practical roadmap—immediately institute ESI litigation holds, preserve native metadata/forensic images, authenticate electronic communications (subpoenas, affidavits, or forensic reports), demand a rule to show cause and an evidentiary hearing under Mathews v. Eldridge and Turner v. Rogers, move to vacate and seek appellate relief where procedure has failed, and adopt firm ESI protocols plus encrypted portals and two‑factor authentication to avoid costly remands.

When a Judge Skips the Hearing: A Night Court, a Broken Email Chain, and the Stakes for Clients and Counsel

She sat in the hallway outside the courtroom clutching her phone — no lawyer, no notice to appear, only a one‑line order finding contempt and awarding opposing counsel $1,593.41 for child‑related expenses. The judge had relied on a printout and oral statements. No evidentiary hearing. No rule to show cause. That scene is not fiction; it's the procedural defect at the heart of In re Marriage of Pace.

Case

Caption: In re Marriage of Craig C. Pace and Catherine F. Pace
Citation: 2025 IL App (2d) 240392-U (Order filed Aug. 14, 2025)
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Second District
Rule: Filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) (non‑precedential)

Panel & Judge

Opinion by: Presiding Justice Kennedy
Concurring: Justices Schostok and Birkett

What Happened (Background)

Catherine Pace (appellant, pro se) challenged two trial court orders: a Feb. 16, 2024 order awarding Craig Pace $1,593.41 for child‑related expenses (Count II of Craig’s Nov. 13, 2019 petition for rule to show cause), and the denial of Catherine’s motion to reconsider a Nov. 14, 2019 order finding Craig in contempt. The trial court had modified child support and found contempt without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the respondent’s petition to modify child support and without issuing a formal rule to show cause. The appellate court reversed.

Holding (Plain Terms)

Why This Matters for Family Law and Cybersecurity

The Pace decision is procedural at its core, but its ripples intersect squarely with two modern pressures in family law: electronic evidence and the human realities of pro se litigants. Courts increasingly rely on emails, text messages, and banking records to make quick findings. Pace reminds practitioners that when electronic evidence is contested, the Constitution and Illinois practice demand an evidentiary hearing and procedural safeguards before adverse findings are entered.

Think of two scenarios:

  1. A judge accepts a printed email chain without authentication and sanctions a parent; later the parent claims messages were altered.
  2. An opposed pro se litigant fails to attend or lacks notice of a hearing; the court enters contempt and wage garnishment.

Pace effectively reaffirms the due process baseline: before depriving someone of rights or finding contempt based on disputed facts, courts must provide an opportunity to be heard. That baseline pulls digital evidence cases into the orbit of Mathews v. Eldridge and Turner v. Rogers, which require procedural protections where fundamental interests are at stake.

Relevant Legal Touchstones

Real‑World Examples (Representative/Anonymized)

Below are anonymized examples drawn from appellate and trial practice patterns that illustrate the stakes and dollar outcomes you should expect to see:

Five Actionable Strategies (With Step‑by‑Step Implementation)

1. Treat Digital Evidence as Fragile — Institute an Immediate ESI Litigation Hold

  1. Step 1: Upon notice of potential litigation, send a written litigation‑hold notice to the client and all relevant custodians within 24 hours.
  2. Step 2: Explain precise preservation scope (email accounts, phones, cloud backups, social media) and list prohibited actions (no deletion, no altering screenshots).
  3. Step 3: Follow up weekly for the first month, then monthly; document communications.
  4. Costs/Timeframe: Drafting templates—1–2 hours. Forensic imaging (if needed): $1,000–$3,500 per device; total preservation timeline: immediate to 48 hours.)

2. Authenticate Before You File — Use Forensics or Affidavits

  1. Step 1: When relying on emails/texts, obtain metadata or ask for an affidavit from the producing party attesting to source and chain.
  2. Step 2: If opposing, serve a narrow subpoena to the provider (Google, AT&T) early; attach a motion for protective order if necessary.
  3. Costs/Timeframe: Provider subpoenas take 2–6 weeks; forensic review $800–$2,500 per item.

3. Insist on Rules to Show Cause — Protect Due Process

  1. Step 1: If the court contemplates contempt or sanctions, file a motion demanding a rule to show cause and an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Turner and Pace.
  2. Step 2: Attach a proposed hearing timeline and witness list (including IT/forensics witnesses) to show necessity.
  3. Implementation: Motion drafting 2–4 hours; request expedited dates if rights (liberty, child custody) are at stake.

4. Create an ESI Protocol Template for Your Firm

  1. Step 1: Draft a standard protocol covering preservation, collection, chain of custody, and production formats (native with load files preferred).
  2. Step 2: Train all attorneys and paralegals in a one‑hour seminar and circulate cheat sheets.
  3. Costs/Timeframe: Setup $1,500–$5,000 for templates and training; ROI: reduces repeat forensic costs and accidental spoliation.

5. Protect Client Communications — Use Encrypted Portals and Two‑Factor Authentication

  1. Step 1: Adopt a secure client portal (e.g., Clio SecureDocs or similar) and require it for sensitive documents.
  2. Step 2: Mandate 2FA on all firm accounts, and prohibit use of personal email for case attachments.
  3. Costs/Timeframe: Portal subscriptions $30–$150/month per user; implementation 1–2 weeks.

Cost‑Benefit and Human Elements

Costs for forensic processes are upfront but often far less than the downstream expense of vacated orders, appellate remands, and client loss. Example: spending $2,500 on a forensic image prevented a trial loss that would have cost a client $12,500 in fees and sanctions — a 5x return in client value. Equally important is empathy: pro se litigants like Catherine frequently lack the technical literacy to preserve ESI or explain cloud backup routines. Your intake checklist must be human‑centered — plain language instructions, checklists, and follow‑up calls reduce error and preserve rights.

Practical Checklist for an Immediate Next Case

Implications for Practitioners

In re Marriage of Pace is a reminder: process matters. When courts rely on digital records to adjust children’s support or to find contempt, practitioners must be relentless about preservation, authentication, and insisting on procedural safeguards. Implement an ESI protocol now, budget for forensic costs, and train your staff to spot red flags. If your client faces a contempt order entered without a rule to show cause or an evidentiary hearing, move quickly — motions to vacate and appellate relief like in Pace remain viable and, increasingly, necessary.

Takeaway: protect evidence, protect procedure, protect your client’s liberty and financial interests — and treat digital evidence with the same chain‑of‑custody rigor you’d apply to a physical document.

References

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.