In re Marriage of Neal

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Neal, 2025 IL App (3d) 250101‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 20, 2025) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑appellee: Thomas Neal. Respondent‑appellant: Mario Neal.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly ordered a mental health examination under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 215 where respondent’s mental condition was “in controversy.”
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by suspending/restricting respondent’s parenting time (including emergency relief under 750 ILCS 5/603.10) because his conduct allegedly “seriously endangered” the children.
- Whether the court’s findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

3. Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. It held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a Rule 215 psychological examination, its finding that respondent’s conduct seriously endangered the children was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and suspension/restriction of parenting time until compliance was within the court’s discretion.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Rule 215: The court found respondent’s mental state was squarely “in controversy” given his persistent conspiracy allegations, communications with school/GAL, threats, refusal to cooperate with court‑appointed evaluators, and behavior affecting the children. A clinical assessment would materially assist resolution of parenting/time issues; therefore Rule 215 was proper.
- Emergency parenting‑time relief (603.10): The court applied the preponderance standard and concluded respondent’s documented conduct (escalating accusatory emails to school personnel, publishing allegations online, distributing a photograph of a child, threats to evaluators, and noncooperation) created a substantial risk to the children’s emotional/physical welfare. Limiting parenting time to supervised visits pending evaluation was a proportional exercise of discretion.
- Standards of review: fact‑finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence (deference to trial court credibility assessments); parenting time modifications reviewed for abuse of discretion.

5. Practice implications
- Where a parent’s mental health/behavior is central to parenting disputes, Rule 215 and a 604.10 evaluator can be appropriate — courts will order evaluations when the mental condition is “in controversy.”
- Persistent, threatening, or disruptive communications (to schools, evaluators, GALs) and refusal to comply with court orders can justify immediate restrictions on parenting time under 603.10.
- Preserve and document communications, threats, evaluator opinions, and school actions to support emergency relief; move promptly to seal sensitive exhibits (e.g., images of children).
- Counsel clients (especially self‑represented litigants) on consequences of noncompliance with court‑ordered evaluations; evaluators may withdraw if threatened, which can impact scheduling and sanctions.
- Be aware this is a Rule 23 non‑precedential disposition; nevertheless, it underscores tolerances courts will afford to protect children and to require psychological assessment when behavior raises safety/fitness concerns.