In re Marriage of Dalzell

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Dalzell, No. 2-24-0658, 2025 IL App (2d) 240658-U (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 17, 2025) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner/Appellee: Jennifer Dalzell (n/k/a Jennifer Johnson). Respondent/Appellant: Steven Dalzell.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether petitioner willfully disobeyed the dissolution judgment’s paragraph allocating ordinary and extraordinary medical/dental/optical expenses (40% petitioner / 60% respondent) by failing to reimburse respondent for transport and admission costs to out‑of‑state treatment facilities.
2. Whether the claimed costs (transportation and residential program fees) qualified as “medical” or “extraordinary medical” expenses under the judgment.
3. Whether respondent forfeited reimbursement rights by failing to provide the 14‑day notice required by the judgment.
4. Whether civil contempt was appropriate and proved (i.e., willful noncompliance with a clear, unequivocal order).
5. Related motion to modify the dissolution judgment for allocation of costs for a child with special needs.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s directed finding for petitioner: respondent failed to prove petitioner willfully disobeyed the dissolution judgment. The contempt petitions were denied.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Contempt requires proof of a clear, unequivocal command and willful noncompliance; the respondent did not meet that burden.
- The court examined the nature of the treatment programs (Turnbridge, Outback Utah, KW Legacy Ranch). Many program elements (wilderness/experiential activities, recreational amenities, chef‑prepared meals, game rooms, skiing, yoga, etc.) were deemed recreational or bundled into residential daily rates, undermining the characterization of the expenses as “medically necessary” extraordinary medical costs recoverable under paragraph E.
- The judgment’s 14‑day advance‑notice provision is substantive: failure to provide required notice can forfeit reimbursement rights where no emergency exists. Evidence showed inadequate pre‑incurrence detail and cost estimates, supporting the trial court’s conclusion.
- The existence of subsequent court orders (June 4, 2020) changing parenting/decisionmaking arrangements and the lack of clear, specific directives about transport/treatment expenditures undercut respondent’s contempt claim.

- Practice implications for family law practitioners
- Draft dissolution orders with precise definitions: explicitly define “medical,” “extraordinary medical,” and include whether residential, experiential, wilderness, or transport costs are included.
- Address transportation expenses expressly (professional transport companies, out‑of‑state transfers) and whether they are reimbursable.
- Require pre‑approval procedures (written estimates, clinical recommendations, and contemporaneous invoices) and specify emergency exceptions and timing.
- When a child has complex needs, obtain clear clinical records/opinions tying placement and transport to medical necessity before seeking reimbursement or contempt.
- Use modification motions rather than contempt where the judgment is ambiguous or circumstances changed; preserve a clear record to meet the willfulness standard for contempt.