In re Marriage of Lebovich, 2025 IL App (1st) 230576‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re the Marriage of Alissa Lebovich (Petitioner‑Appellee) and Lenny Lebovich (Respondent‑Appellant).
- Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division. Order filed Sept. 30, 2025 (Rule 23, non‑precedential). Consolidated appeals Nos. 1‑23‑0576, 1‑24‑0630, 1‑24‑1307, 1‑25‑1003.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial judge exhibited bias warranting vacatur and remand before a different judge.
- Validity of parenting‑time allocations (summer schedule) and limitations on extracurricular activities.
- Authority to require a parent to provide access (passwords/login) to children’s electronic devices and sanctions/contempt for noncompliance.
- Whether refusing a severance payment constituted dissipation of marital assets.
- Appropriateness of a $200,000 attorney’s‑fees award and related turnover/sanctions.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court rejected the claim of judicial bias and affirmed the Allocation Judgment and Dissolution Judgment in all material respects.
- The requirement that respondent provide full access to the children’s Apple IDs (or change passwords if tied to his personal accounts) was affirmed.
- The court’s limits on extracurricular activities (one team/group sport per season; alternating seasons choice) and the summer/regular parenting‑time regime were affirmed.
- The trial court’s finding that respondent dissipated marital assets (including $62,500 in severance he declined) and the attorney’s‑fees award (approximately $200,000) were affirmed.
- The matters were remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion (including turnover and implementation of contempt remedies).

4) Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- Bias: record did not establish objective judicial partiality; rulings were supported by findings and trial record.
- Parenting time & activities: the court applied best‑interests analysis, credited expert and GAL testimony about overscheduling, fatigue, and primary caregiving; restrictions and a structured alternating selection scheme were viewed as reasonable and consistent with children’s welfare.
- Electronic access: practical control over children’s accounts rested with respondent since Apple IDs were tied to his account; the court imposed an affirmative duty to provide access (or change passwords) to ensure co‑parental oversight — noncompliance justified sanctions and contempt.
- Dissipation: refusing a severance that effectively reduced the marital estate was deemed dissipation where the court rejected respondent’s justification.
- Fees: award justified under statutory factors (need/resources, disparity, prior interim fee equalization and funding by third‑party lender with expectation of repayment).

5) Practice implications
- Orders requiring electronic‑device access are enforceable; noncompliance can trigger substantial sanctions and suspension of parenting time. Draft and litigate device‑access provisions with specificity (who controls accounts, password change obligations, privacy carve‑outs).
- Declining offers or benefits (severance, insurance proceeds, etc.) can be treated as dissipation — counsel should evaluate and document the economic/legal rationale before advising refusal.
- Expert and GAL testimony about children’s scheduling and fatigue can materially influence extracurricular and summer parenting rulings.
- Allegations of judicial bias are difficult to sustain absent clear record support; preserve specific objections and rulings for appeal.