In re Marriage of DuMortier

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of DuMortier, No. 1-23-2202, 2024 IL App (1st) 232202-U (1st Dist. July 24, 2024). Petitioner-Appellee: Nicolas DuMortier; Respondent-Appellant: Jorie Lynn Taylor.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in entering default orders (temporary emergency custody, child-support/expense orders, and a default allocation/parenting-plan) after respondent’s failures to appear/comply.
2. Whether the emergency ex parte suspension of parenting time (finding “serious endangerment”) and conditions placed on future parenting time (Rule 215 evaluation, drug testing, therapy, parenting class, supervised visits) were an abuse of discretion.
3. Whether orders on child support, contribution to past child-related expenses, and denial/bar of maintenance were erroneous.
4. Whether pro se filings and post-judgment motions preserved any reversible error.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. It concluded respondent’s pro se arguments did not establish error by the trial court and affirmed the default allocation judgment and ancillary orders.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court emphasized that Jorie repeatedly failed to appear and litigate in the trial court, resulting in default. The record supported the trial court’s factual findings used to justify the emergency ex parte relief: allegations of acute mental-health and substance-abuse episodes, police and DCFS involvement, prior psychiatric hospitalization, and incidents involving the minor child. The trial court properly appointed a guardian ad litem and ordered a Rule 215(a) evaluation; it permissibly conditioned future parenting time on compliance with evaluator recommendations and court-ordered testing/therapy and could require supervised visitation to protect the child. The child-support and expense allocations (monthly guideline amount, retroactive support with interest, apportionment of past expenses) fell within the court’s statutory discretion. The court’s order also barred maintenance based on continuing cohabitation facts asserted in the record. The appellate decision notes that Jorie’s pro se submissions did not show procedural or substantive error sufficient to overturn the judgments.

- Practice implications for family law practitioners
- Defaults: repeated nonappearance/pro se missteps can result in comprehensive default relief (support, allocation, suspension of parenting time) that is difficult to overturn on appeal.
- Emergency relief: detailed factual allegations of immediate risk (police/DCFS involvement, hospitalization) can justify ex parte suspension of parenting time and temporary sole allocation.
- Rule 215 evaluations and GALs: courts will condition restoration of parenting time on compliance with mental-health/substance evaluations and therapy; plan and testing requirements should be considered when negotiating or litigating emergency custody.
- Pro se appeals: appellate courts give limited weight to pro se briefs that fail to demonstrate reversible error; procedural compliance and a complete appellate record remain critical.
- Note: opinion was filed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23 — nonprecedential except as allowed by the rule.