In re Marriage of Calcagno, 2025 IL App (3d) 250299

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Calcagno, 2025 IL App (3d) 250299 (Opinion filed Dec. 5, 2025).
- Petitioner–Appellee: Michael Calcagno. Respondent–Appellant: Dawn Calcagno.

2) Key legal issues
- Does the appellate court have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from a trial court order granting exclusive possession of the marital residence? (Rule 307(a)(1))
- Was the trial court’s admission/use of a section 604.10(b) evaluator’s report (Dr. Shapiro) erroneous where the evaluator did not testify and the report was objected to as hearsay?
- Was the trial court’s award of temporary exclusive possession against the manifest weight of the evidence?

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court denied the husband’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the trial court’s grant of exclusive possession to Michael. The court rejected the appellant’s challenges to admissibility and the manifest-weight claim.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Appellate jurisdiction: The court held Rule 307(a)(1) permits interlocutory appeals from exclusive-possession orders. Although the statutory text changed (old §701 expressly referenced injunctions; current §501(c‑2) does not), the nature of an exclusive‑possession order—depriving a spouse of possession and altering the status quo—retains an injunctive character and thus is appealable under Rule 307(a)(1).
- Admissibility of 604.10(b) report: The court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering the evaluator’s report. The report was treated as the court’s witness report under local practice, and the guardian ad litem (GAL) testified and tied the evaluator’s conclusions to the record. The absence of the evaluator for cross‑examination did not render the report outcome‑determinative or so prejudicial as to require reversal.
- Manifest weight: Exclusive possession is an extraordinary remedy, but the record supported the trial court’s factual findings: prolonged estrangement between mother and children, unsuccessful therapeutic interventions, the evaluator’s recommendation of separation, and the court’s balancing of hardships. The trial court’s credibility determinations and conclusion that separation would better protect the children’s mental well‑being were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

5) Practice implications (short)
- Exclusive‑possession orders are appealable under Rule 307(a)(1); counsel should treat such orders as immediately reviewable.
- If relying on a §604.10(b) evaluator’s report, make the evaluator available for testimony or ensure admissibility through stipulation/local rules; use the GAL to introduce and corroborate evaluator findings where necessary.
- When seeking exclusive possession, develop a record showing how cohabitation jeopardizes physical or mental well‑being and document efforts/failed therapies and the balancing of hardships—trial courts will rely on credibility and holistic assessment.