In re Marriage of Jones

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Jones, 2024 IL App (2d) 240229-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Oct. 15, 2024).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Jessica Jones. Respondent-Appellant: Martin Jones.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court exceeded its authority in appointing a parenting coordinator by (a) adopting an order that altered the Rule 909 review standard, and (b) requiring parties to waive due‑process and complaint rights (e.g., to licensing/ARDC).
- Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction over interlocutory challenges to the parenting‑coordinator order when some objections concern matters beyond care/custody of unemancipated minors.
- Compliance of the trial court’s order with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 909 and local rules.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court: affirmed in part, vacated in part, dismissed in part, and remanded with directions.
- The court held the trial court erred to the extent the order (1) purported to impose a different standard of review for trial-court review of parenting‑coordinator decisions and (2) ordered parties to waive due‑process/complaint rights. Otherwise, the order complied with Rule 909.
- The court dismissed appellate review of issues not involving care or custody of unemancipated minors for lack of jurisdiction.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Rule 909 establishes a uniform framework for parenting coordination in Illinois, including that a trial court’s review of a parenting coordinator’s recommendations is de novo (Ill. S. Ct. R. 909(l)). A trial court cannot contractually or procedurally alter that judicial review standard in its appointment order.
- Broad or blanket waivers of due‑process rights and bar(s) to filing complaints with licensing/disciplinary authorities are impermissible; parties cannot be compelled to waive fundamental procedural protections or administrative complaint avenues as a condition of participation.
- The appellate court limited its review to matters within the subject‑matter jurisdiction proper to interlocutory appeals under Rule 306(a)(5)—i.e., those implicating child custody/care of unemancipated minors—and dismissed peripheral issues outside that scope.
- The opinion reaffirmed that local/county parenting‑coordinator forms must conform to Rule 909’s substantive limits (e.g., scope of authority, prohibited topics, confidentiality limitations, ex parte ban, written recommendations, fee allocation).

5. Practice implications
- Draft and approve parenting‑coordinator orders to track Rule 909 precisely: do not change the de novo review standard or attempt to create alternative appellate/review standards in the order.
- Avoid language that purports to waive parties’ due‑process rights or to bar complaints to licensing/disciplinary bodies; preserve any concerns on the record and in written objections.
- Ensure appointment orders clearly define the coordinator’s scope consistent with Rule 909(f)–(g) and local rules, and memorialize compliance with procedural protections (written recommendations, 14‑day rule, non‑confidentiality limits, no ex parte communications).
- Counsel should preserve objections in writing (and request a court reporter when needed) and be mindful that interlocutory appellate review is limited to custody/care issues involving unemancipated minors.