In re Marriage of Warren

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Warren - Courts cannot modify decision-making authority sua sponte without proper pleadings, as doing so violates due process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard—even when the modification might be substantively justified. Additionally, contempt petitions fail when the underlying order lacks specific dollar amounts, because you cannot enforce what you cannot quantify.

The opposing counsel in your modification case just lost a major procedural argument—and they don't even know it yet. The Third District's recent decision in In re Marriage of Warren hands Illinois family law practitioners a masterclass in how modification battles are won and lost on precision, not passion.

If you're navigating a parenting time dispute, contemplating a contempt petition, or defending against an overreaching court order, this case is your new playbook. Let me break down exactly what happened and why it matters for your strategy.

The Setup: When Proximity Becomes a Weapon

The Warrens divorced in 2023 after fifteen years of marriage. Three minor children. Father secured majority parenting time and sole decision-making authority over educational and extracurricular activities—with the parenting plan explicitly including "professional acting and competitive dance" in that category.

Mother initially lived in Oak Park while father and the children remained in Naperville. Then mother made a strategic move: she relocated to Naperville, now residing seven minutes from father's residence.

That relocation triggered everything that followed.

Mother filed a petition to modify parenting time under 750 ILCS 5/610.5 in May 2024. Father countered with a contempt petition, alleging mother had diverted the children's acting earnings into new accounts and failed to repay funds the court had previously ordered restored. Father represented himself throughout—a decision that would prove costly in ways he didn't anticipate.

What the Court Actually Held

After a January 2025 hearing, Judge Neal W. Cerne modified parenting time to a 50/50 arrangement, denied father's contempt petition, and—here's where it gets interesting—awarded mother decision-making authority over the children's professional acting jobs.

The Third District's response was surgical:

Affirmed: The parenting time modification. Mother's move to Naperville constituted a substantial change in circumstances under Section 610.5(c). The modification to equal parenting time served the children's best interests. The appellate court applied the manifest weight of the evidence standard and found no reversible error.

Affirmed: The denial of father's contempt petition. Why? The original order lacked a specific dollar amount to be repaid. You cannot enforce what you cannot quantify. Father also failed to properly admit his bank statements into evidence—a procedural error that proved fatal to his claims.

Reversed: The decision-making reallocation. No party had filed a motion seeking modification of decision-making responsibilities. The trial court acted sua sponte—on its own initiative—and in doing so, violated father's due process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard.

That reversal is where the real lesson lives.

The Sua Sponte Problem: Courts Cannot Adjudicate What Isn't Pleaded

This is fundamental, yet practitioners watch it happen constantly. A court ventures beyond the issues raised in the pleadings, and suddenly your client is bound by an order they never had the chance to contest.

The Third District cited Suriano v. Lafeber and In re Custody of Ayala for the proposition that courts cannot adjudicate issues not raised in proper pleadings. The trial court's attempt to resolve the "professional acting jobs" question—regardless of its merits—was procedurally defective from inception.

Here's your tactical takeaway: Object immediately and on the record when a court begins addressing issues outside the scope of pending motions. That objection preserves your appellate rights and signals to the court that you're tracking the procedural boundaries.

The court's discussion of whether professional acting constitutes an "extracurricular activity" or "employment" remains unresolved on the merits. The reversal was purely procedural. That distinction is ripe for future litigation—and if you're handling a case involving child performers, you need to be preparing for that argument now.

The Contempt Trap: Precision in Drafting Saves Cases

Father's contempt petition failed for a reason that should haunt every practitioner who drafts court orders: the original order didn't specify a dollar amount.

The court cited People ex rel. City of Chicago v. Le Mirage for the standard: contempt requires a clear, concise order that is easily understood. If your order says "repay the funds" without quantifying those funds, you've drafted an unenforceable order.

This isn't academic. This is the difference between winning and losing when your opposing party diverts assets, violates support obligations, or fails to comply with financial directives.

Draft with enforcement in mind. Every financial obligation should include:

• Specific dollar amounts
• Clear deadlines
• Designated accounts or methods of payment
• Explicit consequences for non-compliance

Father also failed to properly admit his bank statements into evidence. Using documents to refresh recollection does not admit them into the record. Pro se litigants fall into this trap constantly, but so do attorneys who assume the court will simply accept their exhibits without formal foundation and admission.

The appellate record matters. The GAL report was missing from the record on appeal, which resulted in a presumption favoring the trial court's ruling. If you're appealing, ensure your record is complete. If you're defending an appeal, scrutinize the record for gaps that work in your favor.

Relocation as a Modification Trigger

Mother's move from Oak Park to Naperville—a move closer to father—constituted a substantial change in circumstances. This cuts against the typical relocation narrative where a parent moves away and triggers modification concerns.

The court applied 750 ILCS 5/610.5(c), which requires: (1) a substantial change in circumstances arising after entry of the order or not anticipated therein, and (2) modification serves the children's best interests.

Father argued the possibility of mother's relocation was discussed during the original proceedings. The court was unpersuaded. Citing In re Marriage of Virgin, the Third District emphasized that courts must implement parenting schedules based on current circumstances, not speculative future events.

The practical implication: even if relocation was mentioned as a possibility during your original proceedings, the actual occurrence can still qualify as a substantial change in circumstances. Don't assume prior discussions foreclose future modification petitions.

The Two-Year Bar Remains Formidable

Section 610.5(a) imposes a two-year waiting period before decision-making modifications can be sought—unless affidavits demonstrate serious endangerment to the child's physical, mental, or emotional health.

This procedural barrier explains why mother didn't formally petition for decision-making modification and why the trial court's sua sponte action was particularly problematic. The court attempted to circumvent a statutory protection without proper pleadings or the required endangerment showing.

If you're within the two-year window and need to modify decision-making, your path runs through the endangerment exception. Document everything. Build your affidavit with specificity. Vague allegations won't survive scrutiny.

Strategic Implications for Your Case

This case reinforces several non-negotiable principles:

Procedural discipline wins. Father's pro se status contributed to evidentiary failures that doomed his contempt petition. Mother's counsel (or mother herself, if pro se) secured a parenting time modification by properly pleading the substantial change in circumstances. The trial court's procedural overreach on decision-making was reversed despite potentially valid substantive concerns.

Technology and documentation are leverage. Bank statements that weren't properly admitted. Earnings allegedly diverted to new accounts. The financial technology angle in family law cases—tracking assets, documenting transfers, preserving digital evidence—is increasingly central to enforcement and modification disputes. If you're not preserving your client's digital financial trail with forensic precision, you're leaving leverage on the table.

The record is your battlefield. Missing GAL reports, unadmitted exhibits, incomplete transcripts—these gaps determine appellate outcomes. Build your record at trial as if you're already preparing for appeal.

A Note on Precedential Value

This is a Rule 23 order. It may not be cited as precedent except in limited circumstances under Rule 23(e)(1). The holdings are binding on the parties, but the broader legal community should treat the reasoning as persuasive rather than authoritative.

That said, the principles applied here—substantial change in circumstances, contempt enforcement standards, sua sponte limitations—are well-established in Illinois family law. This case illustrates their application rather than creating new doctrine.

The Bottom Line

Your modification case will be won or lost on preparation, precision, and procedural awareness. In re Marriage of Warren demonstrates that even when the facts favor you, evidentiary failures and procedural missteps can eviscerate your position.

If you're facing a modification dispute, a contempt enforcement action, or defending against an overreaching court order, the time to build your strategy is now—not after the hearing, not on appeal, but in the weeks and months of preparation that determine outcomes.

The opposition may not have read this case yet. You have.

Book your consultation with Steele Family Law today. We don't just know the law—we know how to deploy it when the stakes are highest.

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.