In re Marriage of Royer, 2025 IL App (2d) 240378

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Royer, 2025 IL App (2d) 240378 - Here is a two-sentence summary of the article: The Illinois Second District Court of Appeals recently handed down a significant ruling in "In re Marriage of Royer," which emphasizes that parenting plan benchmarks are not suggestions, but rather material conditions that must be met before restrictions can be lifted. The court's decision provides guidance for family law practitioners on how to draft and enforce parenting plans with clear benchmarks, as well as strategies for appealing trial court errors and leveraging digital evidence to build a strong record.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and if you're reading In re Marriage of Royer correctly, you understand exactly why.

The Second District just handed family law practitioners a masterclass in how parenting plan benchmarks actually work—and more importantly, what happens when a party thinks they can waltz around them. If you're representing high-net-worth clients with complex custody arrangements, this case is your new ammunition.

The Setup: Agreed Benchmarks Are Not Suggestions

Here's what happened in Royer: The parties entered a February 2020 parenting plan that expressly conditioned overnight parenting time on specific benchmarks. The father had to provide full disclosure of medical, psychological, and psychiatric records to the guardian ad litem. The GAL then had to verify those disclosures were satisfactory before restrictions could be lifted.

That agreement was incorporated into the dissolution judgment. It wasn't a handshake deal. It was court-ordered, contractually binding, and crystal clear.

The father decided compliance was optional. He produced partial records. He resisted full cooperation. He made inconsistent representations about his medical history—including claims about an inoperable brain tumor that later morphed into claims of improvement. The GAL documented erratic behavior, past diagnoses, allegations of substance misuse, and ongoing safety concerns.

Then he filed for overnight parenting time anyway.

The Trial Court's Error—And Your Strategic Opportunity

The trial court granted overnight parenting time despite the father's failure to satisfy the agreed benchmarks and despite the GAL's unresolved safety concerns.

The Second District reversed. The reasoning was surgical:


The negotiated parenting-plan conditions were material.
The father bore the burden to comply before seeking elimination of restrictions.
Without the required disclosures and GAL verification, the trial court abused its discretion.


This is not a close call. This is the appellate court reminding trial courts—and opposing counsel—that agreements have teeth.

What This Means for Your Practice

1. Draft Parenting Plans Like They're Going to Be Litigated

Because they will be. When health or safety issues exist, your benchmarks must be:


Specific: Name exactly what records must be produced (medical, psychiatric, psychological, substance abuse treatment).
Verifiable: Designate who confirms compliance (GAL, agreed-upon professional, court).
Enforceable: Include subpoena authority or automatic release provisions. Don't leave your client dependent on the other party's good faith.


2. Noncompliance Is Your Appellate Weapon

If opposing counsel's client hasn't satisfied the benchmarks, they haven't earned the modification. Royer confirms that trial courts must address whether contractual conditions were met before modifying restrictions. If the trial court skips this step, you have a strong record for appeal.

Document everything. Every missed deadline, every partial production, every evasive response. Build the record that makes reversal inevitable.

3. GAL Reports Carry Weight—Use Them Strategically

The GAL's testimony and reports were central to the reversal in Royer. The appellate court credited the GAL's documented concerns about erratic behavior, inconsistent medical representations, and unresolved safety issues.

If you're representing the protective parent, secure releases and subpoenas for medical records proactively. Don't wait for the other side to control the narrative. If the GAL can't verify safety because records weren't produced, that's your argument.

If you're representing the parent seeking expanded time, understand this: partial compliance is not compliance. Produce everything. Cooperate fully. The appellate court will not be sympathetic to claims that the trial court should have overlooked your client's resistance.

4. Trial Courts Must Make Explicit Findings

Royer reinforces that modification orders require explicit findings on both changed circumstances and best-interest factors—and whether the contractual benchmarks were satisfied. If the trial court's order is conclusory, you have grounds to challenge it.

The Cyber-Law Angle Your Opposition Isn't Considering

Here's where sophisticated practitioners separate themselves from the pack.

Medical records, psychiatric evaluations, prescription histories—these are increasingly stored in patient portals, electronic health records, and cloud-based systems. When a party claims they "can't access" records or provides incomplete productions, forensic analysis of their digital footprint can expose the truth.

Did they access the patient portal after claiming they couldn't retrieve records? Did they selectively download some documents while ignoring others? Metadata doesn't lie.

Cyber negligence—failure to preserve electronic records, deletion of communications about medical conditions, manipulation of digital evidence—is leverage in discovery. If your opposing party is playing games with record production, a targeted forensic inquiry can shift the entire case.

The Urgency Is Now

If you're litigating a custody modification where health or safety benchmarks exist, Royer is mandatory reading. The Second District has made clear that parenting plan conditions are not aspirational. They are prerequisites.

Your opposition may be hoping the trial court will overlook noncompliance. They may be betting you won't appeal. They may be counting on the other side running out of resources before the record is fully developed.

That's a losing strategy. And they know it.

The question is whether you're positioned to capitalize on their weakness—or whether you're the one scrambling to explain why your client didn't produce the records.

Protect Your Client's Position

Whether you're drafting an initial parenting plan with enforceable benchmarks, defending against an improper modification, or building an appellate record after a trial court error, the stakes are too high for generic strategy.

Book a consultation now. Your opposition is already losing ground. Make sure you're the one taking it.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, CEH, ISC2). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Consultation

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.