In re Marriage of Gorr

In re Marriage of Gorr, 2024 IL App (3d) 230412 (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. June 6, 2024)

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Gorr, 2024 IL App (3d) 230412.
- Petitioner–Appellee: Brian Gorr. Respondent–Appellant: Angela Gorr. Appeal from Will County Circuit Court (No. 15‑D‑1185).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying respondent’s (Angela’s) third amended petition to modify parenting time and the allocation of decision‑making (seeking sole decision‑making and restrictions on father’s time) after alleging substantial change in circumstances and endangerment.
- Whether statutory procedures under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (notably evaluations under 750 ILCS 5/604.10 and modification provisions §§ 602.5, 602.7, 610.5) were properly applied.
- Whether the court abused its discretion by failing to order appropriate fact‑finding (e.g., professional custody evaluation, guardian ad litem/parenting coordinator) before denying relief.

3. Holding / outcome
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s August 10, 2023 order denying Angela’s petition and remanded the case with directions.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The panel found the trial court’s denial to be erroneous as to process and/or application of the statutory framework governing custody modification and evaluations. The parties’ history (contentious co‑parenting, disputed mental‑health/behavioral diagnoses and treatment for the older child, and allegations of obstruction and harmful conduct) presented more than conclusory allegations and warranted the procedural protections and fact‑finding Congress/Illinois law contemplates (e.g., professional evaluation under § 604.10 and targeted inquiry into substantial change/endangerment claims).
- The record showed longstanding, material disputes over medical and therapeutic decisions (diagnosis and psychopharmacologic treatment for ADHD; recommended social‑skills programming; participation in therapy) and serious medical needs for the younger child (acute flaccid myelitis), supporting the necessity of a formal evaluation and considered findings rather than summary denial.
- Because the trial court did not adequately adjudicate those factual disputes under the Act’s procedures, the appellate court ordered remand for proceedings consistent with the statute and its opinion.

5. Practice implications
- When seeking modification of parenting time or decision‑making, particularly where medical/therapeutic disputes or allegations of endangerment exist, counsel should: (a) plead specific factual allegations showing substantial change or risk to support a § 604.10 evaluation; (b) request appointment of a professional custody evaluator, GAL, or parenting coordinator where appropriate and preserve objections if denied; (c) develop and admit contemporaneous records (medical, therapy, school reports) to justify relief; and (d) be prepared to show why temporary relief (e.g., restricted time or sole decision‑making) is needed pending evaluation. Trial courts must follow statutory evaluation procedures and make factual findings; appellate courts will reverse where denial short‑circuits those processes.