In re Marriage of S.F., 2024 IL App (2d) 240440-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of S.F., 2024 IL App (2d) 240440-U - The Second District's affirmance in In re Marriage of S.F. demonstrates that when a GAL and court-appointed psychologist present unified findings of child endangerment, appellate courts will treat the trial court's credibility determinations as virtually unassailable, making pre-evaluation intervention—not post-judgment challenges—the critical strategic window. However, the remand on the parenting-time restriction underscores that even in cases of serious endangerment findings, orders must explicitly incorporate the statutory hearing requirement before modifications can take effect, providing restricted parents a procedural foothold that survives otherwise comprehensive defeats.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot when your ex-spouse's pattern of behavior reads like a textbook case of parental alienation meets medical manipulation. The Second District just handed down In re Marriage of S.F., and if you're navigating a high-conflict custody dispute in Lake County or anywhere in Illinois, this unpublished order is a strategic roadmap you cannot afford to ignore.

The judge already knows what experienced practitioners understand: when a Guardian ad Litem and court-appointed psychologist align on findings of serious child endangerment, the remedial hammer comes down hard. In S.F., that hammer included stripping one parent of all decision-making authority, conditioning any future contact on completed therapy and follow-up evaluation, and restricting even the dissemination of the psychological evaluation itself.

Your opposition just blinked if they think appellate courts will second-guess these findings. They won't—and this case proves it.

The Facts That Sealed the Outcome

This Lake County dissolution involved allegations that should make any family law practitioner sit up straight: suspected Munchausen-by-proxy dynamics, evidence of coaching children, multiple unnecessary treatment placements, and chronic educational absenteeism. The court-appointed psychologist, identified in the order as Dr. Finn, and the GAL presented a unified front. The trial court credited their testimony entirely.

The result? Petitioner S.F. received sole medical and educational decision-making authority. Respondent S.G.S. was denied parenting time outright, with any restoration conditioned on therapeutic compliance and professional re-evaluation. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.

Notice what happened here: the respondent challenged the evidence, challenged the exclusion of materials, challenged the restrictions on disseminating the psychological report. Every challenge failed. The appellate court's message is unmistakable—preserve your record meticulously, or watch your appeal evaporate.

Strategic Takeaways for High-Conflict Custody Litigation

1. Expert Alignment Is Everything

When your GAL and court-appointed evaluator reach the same conclusions, you've built a fortress. The trial court's credibility determinations become nearly bulletproof on appeal. If you're the parent facing these allegations, understand this: attacking the expert's methodology or conclusions after the fact is a losing strategy. Your intervention must happen during the evaluation process—not in post-judgment motions.

2. The Record Is Your Weapon or Your Grave

The respondent in S.F. argued that evidence was improperly excluded and that the trial court's findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court wasn't persuaded. Why? Because the appellant failed to demonstrate specific prejudice from any alleged exclusion.

File your motions to compel immediately when discovery is obstructed. Document every instance of withheld evidence. Create a paper trail that screams prejudice if you're denied access to expert materials. Waiting until appeal to complain about excluded evidence is malpractice-adjacent.

3. The Statutory Hearing Requirement Has Teeth

Here's where the appellate court actually provided relief to the respondent—and it's a procedural point every practitioner must internalize. The order restricting parenting time was remanded for modification to reflect the statutory requirement that a hearing must be held before any change to those restrictions.

This isn't a technicality. It's constitutional due process meeting statutory mandate. If you're the parent seeking restoration of parenting time, you're entitled to that hearing. If you're the parent who obtained the restrictions, ensure the order explicitly incorporates this requirement, or you'll face remand and delay.

4. Jurisdiction Kills Appeals Before They Start

The respondent's challenge to the dissolution judgment itself? Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court didn't even reach the merits. This is a brutal reminder: timeliness and procedural compliance aren't optional. Miss your window, file the wrong notice, or fail to preserve the issue below, and your substantive arguments never see daylight.

The Munchausen-by-Proxy Dynamic in Custody Litigation

Courts are increasingly sophisticated about recognizing when a parent's over-involvement in a child's medical care crosses from concern into pathology. The allegations in S.F.—multiple treatment placements, suspected coaching, chronic school absences—form a recognizable pattern.

If you're representing a client who suspects this dynamic, your discovery must be surgical:


Subpoena every medical record from every provider. Look for inconsistencies, doctor-shopping patterns, and treatments that don't match documented diagnoses.
Obtain school attendance records and cross-reference absences with medical appointments.
Depose therapists and treatment providers about who initiated contact and what information the parent provided versus what the child independently reported.
Request the court appoint a forensic psychologist with specific experience in factitious disorder imposed on another (the clinical term for MSBP).


If you're defending against these allegations, your counter-strategy must be equally aggressive: independent medical evaluations, contemporaneous documentation of legitimate health concerns, and expert testimony challenging the MSBP framework as applied to your client's specific conduct.

Digital Evidence and the Modern Custody Battle

The S.F. order doesn't detail the digital evidence involved, but cases involving coaching allegations and coordinated behavior patterns increasingly turn on electronic discovery. Text messages between parent and child, social media posts, email communications with medical providers, and even metadata from documents can establish timelines and intent.

Cyber negligence is leverage in discovery. If your opposing party has been careless with their digital footprint—deleting messages, using encrypted apps to communicate with the children, or failing to preserve electronically stored information after litigation commenced—you have a spoliation argument that can shift the evidentiary burden.

Conversely, if your client has been communicating with the children through platforms that auto-delete messages, stop immediately. Preservation obligations attach the moment litigation is reasonably anticipated. Violating those obligations doesn't just look bad—it can result in adverse inference instructions that functionally decide the case.

The Supervised Reunification Pathway

When a court conditions parenting time on therapy completion and professional re-evaluation, it's creating a structured pathway back to contact—not an indefinite ban. But that pathway has gates, and each gate requires documented compliance.

For the restricted parent:


Engage a therapist immediately. Not next month. Now.
Ensure your therapist understands they may be called to testify or provide reports to the court.
Document every session, every assignment completed, every insight gained.
When you petition for modification, come with evidence of changed circumstances—not just the passage of time.


For the parent who obtained the restrictions:


Monitor compliance without harassment. You're entitled to verification, not surveillance.
Prepare for the eventual hearing. The restrictions won't last forever, and the court will want to see that you've facilitated the children's therapeutic process rather than obstructed it.
Work with the children's therapists to establish appropriate reunification protocols before the court orders you to.


What This Means for Your Case

The S.F. decision is unpublished and non-precedential under Rule 23(b). Cite it for its persuasive value, not as binding authority. But the principles it reinforces are bedrock Illinois family law:


Trial courts have broad discretion in parenting allocations, and appellate courts will not disturb credibility findings absent clear error.
Expert testimony from court-appointed evaluators and GALs carries enormous weight.
Procedural compliance—preserving issues, timely appeals, proper jurisdiction—is non-negotiable.
Statutory hearing requirements protect both parties and must be incorporated into any order restricting parenting time.


If you're facing a high-conflict custody dispute involving allegations of parental alienation, medical abuse, or child endangerment, the time to build your strategy is before the evaluation, before the GAL files their report, before the trial court makes findings you'll spend years trying to undo.

The opposition is already losing if they're reacting instead of anticipating. Position yourself on the right side of that equation.

Book a consultation now. Your children's future—and your parental rights—depend on getting this right the first time.

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.