In re Marriage of Nelson

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Nelson, 2025 IL App (5th) 250001‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist. July 30, 2025). Petitioner‑Appellant: Brian Nelson. Respondent‑Appellee: Lindsay Nelson.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court’s allocation of parenting time (including no contact with one child and limited phone contact with two children) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to award appellant a share of appellee’s pension.
3. Whether the division of other marital assets and debts, and treatment of alleged dissipation, were proper.
4. Whether temporary child support and maintenance calculations/orders were an abuse of discretion.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part: it affirmed the parenting‑time allocation, the trial court’s rulings on division of most assets/debts, the finding of no dissipation, and the child support/maintenance awards. The court reversed the trial court’s decision declining to award any portion of appellee’s pension to appellant, finding that denial an abuse of discretion, and remanded for proper treatment of the pension.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The panel applied the usual standards: factual determinations (parenting time, dissipation) reviewed for manifest weight of the evidence; property‑division and discretionary monetary orders reviewed for abuse of discretion. The trial court’s restrictions on contact were supported by evidence of a domestic‑battery charge involving the parties’ daughter, a no‑contact bond, alleged violations of that bond, prior physical incidents, and counseling for the children—facts that supported limited parenting time and were not against the manifest weight. The appellate court found no competent proof of dissipation and therefore upheld that finding. By contrast, the court concluded the trial court erred with respect to the pension: the record did not support the trial court’s refusal to allocate any portion; the pension is marital property subject to equitable division and requires express findings as to characterization, valuation, and division method. Because those necessary steps were not properly undertaken, that ruling constituted an abuse of discretion and requires remand.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
1. When domestic violence or no‑contact orders exist, trial courts have broad discretion to limit parenting time; expect appellate deference if the limitation is supported by evidence.
2. Preserve and develop a clear record on pensions and other retirement benefits: establish marital portion, valuation, and recommended division method (or present offsets) and request specific findings—failure to do so invites reversal or remand.
3. For dissipation claims, present direct evidence tracing post‑separation dissipation and timing. Bare accusations are insufficient.
4. If disputing temporary support/maintenance, submit competing worksheets and calculations timely—failure to provide calculations weakens appellate review.
5. Note: decision filed under Rule 23 (non‑precedential except as permitted).