In re Marriage of Treva S.

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Treva S., 2024 IL App (5th) 240615‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist. Oct. 17, 2024).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Treva S.; Respondent‑Appellee: Drew T.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in (a) denying Treva’s request to modify parenting time, (b) denying her request for sole decision‑making over extracurricular activities, and (c) failing to find that Drew’s parenting seriously endangered the children’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health.
- Procedural issue: whether the appellant’s noncompliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) forfeited appellate review of those arguments.

3) Holding/outcome
- The Fifth District affirmed the trial court’s May 7, 2024 order. The appeal was forfeited because Treva’s brief failed to comply with Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020), and the appellate court therefore declined to reach the merits.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Rule 341 requires that the appellant’s brief contain the contentions, reasons, citation of authorities, and record page cites. Points not properly argued or supported are forfeited.
- Although the appellee’s motion to strike the brief was denied, the appellate court found Treva’s brief provided “scant argument and authority,” lacking specific application of law to facts and record references required by Rule 341(h)(7). Because the brief failed to identify the foundations of the arguments and supply record cites, the court concluded Treva forfeited her challenges and affirmed the trial court’s order without addressing the substantive parenting issues.
- The opinion summarizes the trial court’s findings (trial court found a substantial change of circumstances, granted Treva sole decision‑making for health/medical care, required use of a communication app, kept joint decision‑making for extracurriculars, and restored alternating‑week parenting time). The trial court found inappropriate conduct by Drew but not the level of proof necessary to restrict parenting time for serious endangerment.

5) Practice implications
- Strictly comply with Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h): state contentions, explain legal reasoning, cite controlling authorities, and give specific record page citations. Failure to do so can result in forfeiture even if a motion to strike is denied.
- On custody/parenting appeals, explicitly apply statutory standards (substantial change in circumstances; best interest of the child; preponderance standard for serious endangerment) to concrete record evidence (GAL report, testimony, exhibits) with pinpoint cites.
- Preserve issues at trial and articulate precise grounds for relief in the opening brief; avoid speculation or conclusory assertions. If seeking restrictions on parenting time, develop and cite record evidence demonstrating the required threshold (serious endangerment) rather than relying on generalizations.