In re Marriage of Werhun

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Werhun, 2025 IL App (3d) 250201‑U (Oct. 29, 2025) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellant: Erin Werhun. Respondent‑Appellee: Jeffrey Werhun. Appeal from Du Page County (18th Judicial Circuit).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to restrict Jeffrey’s parenting time based on alcohol use under 750 ILCS 5/603.10.
2. Whether Jeffrey cohabitated (affecting maintenance claims of a third party).
3. Whether the court should have imputed income to Jeffrey for maintenance/financial allocation purposes.
4. Whether the trial court’s valuation of Jeffrey’s contributions to the marital estate and allocation of assets was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
5. Whether the record supported findings of dissipation by either party.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Specifically: (1) the refusal to restrict Jeffrey’s parenting time was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) the finding that Jeffrey did not cohabitate was not against the manifest weight; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by failing to impute income to Jeffrey; (4) the court’s valuation of Jeffrey’s contribution to the marital estate was not against the manifest weight; and (5) the record regarding dissipation findings was insufficient for appellate review — remand required for further findings.

- Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- Parenting time: the GAL who monitored visits testified the supervised visits went well, observed no impairment during visits, and recommended removal of restrictions so long as SoberLink (monitoring) was used for extended overnight time. Under section 603.10 the court may restrict parenting time only if alcohol use interferes with caretaking; the GAL’s testimony and lack of demonstrated impairment supported the trial court’s refusal to further restrict time.
- Cohabitation: the record did not sufficiently show conjugal cohabitation (evidence such as social‑media posts and occasional sightings were inadequate), so the trial court’s factual finding was within the manifest‑weight standard.
- Imputation of income: Jeffrey’s prior earnings history (consulting, real‑estate activity) and post‑separation financial behavior supported imputing income; the trial court’s failure to do so was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal/remand to address support and allocation calculations.
- Dissipation: both parties alleged large dissipations but the trial court’s findings (and the record) lacked the specificity and tracing needed for appellate review; remand for detailed findings and calculations was required.

- Practice implications
- When seeking restrictions on parenting time for substance use, develop an evidentiary record tying substance use to actual impairment of caretaking (medical records, observations, drug/alcohol testing, expert testimony). Relying on GAL recommendations alone may not be sufficient.
- For cohabitation claims, produce concrete evidence of a conjugal relationship (shared residence, financial interdependence, habitual sexual/household conduct), not just social‑media posts or sporadic observations.
- If a party’s current reported income is low but prior earning capacity or opportunities exist, move to impute income with documented proof (tax returns, employment history, business records). Trial courts must address imputation explicitly; appellate courts will reverse when they fail to do so.
- For dissipation claims, preserve detailed tracing of expenditures (receipts, account ledgers, forensic accounting) and obtain specific written findings from the trial court to enable appellate review.