In re Marriage of Salbi

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Salbi, 2024 IL App (2d) 240322‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Oct. 7, 2024) (Rule 23(b) order; non‑precedential except as allowed).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Hussain Salbi. Respondent‑Appellee: Tamara Ali. Minor child S.S. was represented and joined a petition to modify.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard and reached a proper result on a post‑dissolution petition to modify allocation of parental decision‑making and parenting time (statutory framework in 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c) and 602.7(b)).
- Whether the trial court properly granted a directed finding for respondent after petitioner and the child presented their case.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s petition for adjudication of indirect civil contempt/ enforcement concerning division of retirement/investment accounts and related post‑judgment transfers (QDRO/transfer procedures).

3. Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. It held: (1) the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when assessing petitioner’s request to modify parenting time; (2) notwithstanding that error, the trial court did not err in granting respondent’s motion for a directed finding on the request to modify parental decision‑making and parenting time; and (3) the trial court did not err in denying the contempt/enforcement petition.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court identified that the trial court used an improper standard in one respect when considering modification of parenting time, but appellate review focused on whether the record supported relief. Petitioner and the child failed to present legally sufficient evidence of the requisite substantial change in circumstances and of best‑interest adjustments to overcome the original allocation. Key evidentiary shortcomings included absence or exclusion of evaluator reports ordered under section 604.10, limited admissible testimony, and inability to prove that immediate modification to award petitioner majority time or sole decision‑making was necessary.
- On the contempt/enforcement claim, the court found no reversible error: the dissolution judgment contemplated cooperation and post‑judgment adjustments, values had changed, and petitioner failed to meet the standard to show contempt or entitlement to the specific relief sought.

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- For modification petitions, be sure to plead and prove both (a) a substantial change in circumstances and (b) that modification is in the child’s best interests; use the statutory factors and introduce ordered evaluator or therapist reports into evidence.
- Preserve clear, admissible evidence (expert/evaluator reports, witness testimony) before resting—directed findings will be affirmed where the movant fails to present legally sufficient proof.
- For post‑judgment asset division (retirement/QDRO issues), obtain clear documentary proof of current account values and follow the judgment’s procedural requirements (cooperation, QDROs); enforcement/ contempt requires precise proof that a party willfully disobeyed an enforceable mandate.
- When a minor is represented and seeks modification, ensure the minor’s filings and evidence are robust and admissible; courts scrutinize adequacy of proof even where a child voice is involved.