In re Marriage of Warren

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Warren - A single Illinois family law case reveals how procedural missteps—failing to formally admit bank statements, drafting vague contempt orders, and neglecting to object when courts overstep—can devastate otherwise strong arguments. In re Marriage of Warren delivers a stark warning: in high-stakes custody and financial disputes, mastering evidentiary mechanics and preserving due process objections often matters more than the merits themselves.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and they don't even know it yet.

A recent Third District decision just handed Illinois family law practitioners a masterclass in procedural discipline, evidentiary fundamentals, and the precise boundaries of judicial authority. If you're litigating parenting modifications in the 18th Judicial Circuit or anywhere in Illinois, In re Marriage of Warren is required reading. Not because it breaks new ground—it doesn't—but because it exposes exactly how cases are won and lost on mechanics your opponent probably isn't tracking.

The Setup: When "Closer" Becomes "Equal"

Here's the scenario: Parents divorce after 15 years. Father gets majority parenting time and sole decision-making over educational and extracurricular activities—including, critically, "professional acting and competitive dance." Mother initially lives in Oak Park while father and the three children remain in Naperville. Geographic distance justified the parenting time allocation.

Then mother moves to Naperville. Seven minutes from father's residence.

She files under Section 610.5(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Father, proceeding pro se, fights the modification and files a contempt petition alleging mother diverted the children's acting earnings into new accounts and failed to repay funds previously ordered restored.

The circuit court granted mother equal parenting time, denied father's contempt petition, and—here's where it gets interesting—sua sponte awarded mother decision-making authority over the children's professional acting employment. Father appealed all three rulings.

The Third District's response was surgical: affirm, affirm, reverse.

Holding One: The Relocation That Wasn't—But Still Changed Everything

Father argued that mother's move to Naperville wasn't a "substantial change in circumstances" because the possibility of her relocating closer was discussed during the original proceedings. The court rejected this argument with characteristic efficiency.

Under Section 610.5(c), modification requires two elements: (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. The court found both satisfied.

The key principle here comes from In re Marriage of Virgin: courts must implement parenting schedules based on current circumstances, not speculative future events. The fact that mother's potential move was mentioned during dissolution proceedings didn't make it "anticipated" in the legal sense. The original order was crafted around the reality of geographic separation. That reality no longer existed.

The court applied the best interests factors under Section 602.7(b), noting that explicit findings on each factor aren't required under In re Custody of G.L. The modification to 50/50 parenting time was affirmed under the manifest weight of the evidence standard.

Strategic takeaway: If you're defending against a modification petition, "we talked about this possibility" isn't a defense. The question is whether the original order was designed around circumstances that have materially changed. If your client's parenting time allocation was predicated on distance, and that distance evaporates, prepare for reallocation.

Holding Two: The Contempt Petition That Self-Destructed

Father's contempt petition should have been a layup. Mother allegedly diverted children's earnings and failed to repay funds she was ordered to restore. Open-and-shut, right?

Wrong. Father made two fatal errors that practitioners must avoid.

Error One: The order lacked specificity. The original order required mother to repay funds but didn't specify a dollar amount. Under People ex rel. City of Chicago v. Le Mirage, contempt requires a clear, concise order that is easily understood. An order requiring repayment without stating what must be repaid is unenforceable through contempt proceedings.

Error Two: The evidence never made it in. Father had bank statements showing the alleged diversion. He used them to refresh his recollection during testimony. But he never moved to admit them into evidence. The court correctly noted that using documents to refresh recollection does not admit them into the record.

The contempt denial was affirmed under the abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings and manifest weight for the contempt finding itself.

Strategic takeaway: Draft your orders like they'll be enforced through contempt—because they might need to be. Every financial obligation should include a specific dollar amount, a specific deadline, and a specific method of compliance. And for the love of due process, formally admit your exhibits.

Holding Three: The Sua Sponte Overreach

This is where the court drew blood.

The circuit court, apparently concerned about the children's professional acting careers, sua sponte awarded mother decision-making authority over those jobs. Neither party had filed a motion seeking modification of decision-making responsibilities. The court just... did it.

The Third District reversed, citing Suriano v. Lafeber and In re Custody of Ayala for the foundational principle that courts cannot adjudicate issues not raised in proper pleadings. Father's due process rights to notice and opportunity to be heard were violated.

The court also noted—though this is arguably dicta given the procedural disposition—that Section 610.5(a) creates a two-year bar on modifications to decision-making responsibilities (excluding parenting time) absent affidavits showing serious endangerment. The dissolution judgment was entered in November 2023. The modification hearing was in January 2025. The two-year period hadn't elapsed, and no endangerment allegations were made.

Strategic takeaway: Object immediately if the court ventures beyond the issues raised in the pleadings. On the record. Loudly. The failure to object in real-time can waive appellate review. And if you're the one seeking expanded relief, file the motion. Don't rely on the court to do your job for you.

The Unresolved Question: Extracurricular Activity or Employment?

Here's the issue the court didn't resolve: Does "professional acting" fall within "extracurricular activities" for decision-making purposes, or is it employment requiring separate treatment?

The original parenting plan explicitly included "professional acting and competitive dance" within father's sole decision-making authority over extracurricular activities. The circuit court apparently viewed professional acting as employment rather than extracurricular activity, justifying separate decision-making allocation.

The Third District didn't reach this question on the merits because the procedural defect—no proper pleading—was dispositive. But this distinction remains open for future litigation. If your case involves children with professional income streams—acting, modeling, social media, competitive athletics with prize money—this ambiguity is a landmine.

Strategic takeaway: When drafting parenting plans involving children with professional activities, define your terms explicitly. Don't rely on "extracurricular activities" to cover professional engagements. Create separate categories with separate decision-making allocations if the activities generate income or have contractual obligations.

The Pro Se Problem

Father appeared pro se throughout these proceedings and on appeal. The court's opinion reflects the consequences.

He failed to properly admit evidence. He failed to ensure the appellate record included the GAL report—resulting in a presumption favoring the trial court's ruling. He raised arguments on appeal that weren't preserved below.

Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys. The court will not rescue you from procedural failures because you chose to represent yourself. In high-stakes family law matters involving parenting time, decision-making authority, and children's professional earnings, self-representation is rarely the cost-saving measure it appears to be.

Practical Checklist from Warren

For practitioners handling modification cases, this decision provides a concrete operational framework:

• Contempt orders must be specific. Dollar amounts. Deadlines. Methods of compliance. If you're drafting the order, build in enforceability. If you're challenging one, scrutinize its specificity.
• Admit your exhibits. Refreshing recollection is not admission. Move to admit. Get a ruling. Make the record.
• Object to scope creep. If the court raises issues not in the pleadings, object on due process grounds immediately. Preserve the record for appeal.
• Complete your appellate record. Missing GAL reports, missing transcripts, missing exhibits—all create adverse presumptions. The appellant bears the burden of presenting a sufficient record.
• Mind the two-year bar. Section 610.5(a) prohibits decision-making modifications within two years absent endangerment. Know when your client's order was entered. Know when the clock runs.
• Define professional activities explicitly. "Extracurricular activities" may not cover income-generating professional engagements. Draft accordingly.

The Cyber-Law Angle: Financial Diversion in the Digital Age

Father's contempt petition alleged mother diverted children's acting earnings to new accounts. He couldn't prove it because he couldn't get his evidence admitted. But the underlying allegation raises issues that increasingly require digital forensics.

Bank statements are the tip of the iceberg. Payment app transfers, cryptocurrency movements, Venmo and PayPal transactions, digital wallet activity—all of these create discoverable records that can establish financial diversion. In cases involving children's professional earnings, subpoenas to financial institutions and digital payment platforms may be necessary to trace fund movements.

If your opposing party is allegedly hiding or diverting assets, the discovery strategy must account for digital financial channels. Traditional bank subpoenas aren't sufficient when money moves through apps and platforms that don't appear on conventional statements.

The Bottom Line

In re Marriage of Warren is a Rule 23 order—non-precedential except in limited circumstances. But the principles it applies are bedrock Illinois family law. Modification requires substantial changed circumstances and best interests analysis. Contempt requires clear orders and properly admitted evidence. Courts cannot adjudicate issues not raised in pleadings.

These aren't novel holdings. They're reminders that procedural discipline wins cases. Your opponent's failure to master these fundamentals is your advantage.

If you're facing a parenting modification, a contempt proceeding, or a dispute over decision-making authority involving children with professional activities, the margin for error is razor-thin. The difference between winning and losing often comes down to the mechanics your opponent didn't bother to learn.

Book a consultation now. Your opposition is already making mistakes. Let's make sure you're not.

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.