In re Marriage of Jonathon P.

Overview

This Rule 23 order affirms the trial court's dissolution judgment awarding respondent sole parental decision-making authority and majority parenting time for the parties' minor child. The appellate court also upheld the retroactive child support award and found petitioner forfeited his challenge to the property distribution by failing to adequately develop his argument.

Key Facts

• Parties married in 2020 after relationship since 2013; one child, J.P., born August 2019
• Parties separated October 2022 after petitioner broke his hand punching his truck during an argument witnessed by J.P.
• GAL found both parents capable caregivers but unable to communicate effectively; described petitioner as "controlling, unyielding, quick to disproportionate anger, and patronizing"
• Petitioner voluntarily left $200,000/year job in April 2024 after refusing $30,000 pay cut; declined unemployment benefits; had no income at trial
• Respondent was primary caregiver during marriage; petitioner worked 50-60 hours weekly including Saturdays
• Petitioner suffered heart attack in 2023; had previously broken bones twice by punching objects in anger

Procedural History

Fourth District Appellate Court of Illinois, appeal from Jo Daviess County Circuit Court (No. 23DC14). Petition for dissolution filed April 2023. Judgment entered November 2024, modified on reconsideration February 2025. Accelerated appeal under Rule 311(a)(5).

Holdings

1. Decision-making authority: Award of sole decision-making to respondent was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Court properly considered statutory factors under 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c) and found respondent demonstrated greater willingness to facilitate child's relationship with petitioner.
2. Parenting time: Allocation giving respondent majority parenting time was not contrary to child's best interest. Court properly found respondent was primary caretaker and parties could not cooperate on scheduling.
3. Retroactive child support: Award of $11,174.98 retroactive support was not an abuse of discretion and did not constitute a "windfall" under In re Marriage of Bush.
4. Property distribution: Challenge forfeited for failure to present adequate argument under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7).

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c): Decision-making allocation based on child's best interests considering all relevant factors; court may not consider conduct not affecting parent-child relationship (§602.5(e))
• 750 ILCS 5/602.7(b): Parenting time allocation considers 17 factors including caretaking functions performed, prior agreements, and ability to place child's needs first
• Voluntary impoverishment: Court properly imputed income of $170,000 (reduced salary petitioner rejected) rather than actual $0 income
• Retroactive support: Within trial court's discretion per In re Marriage of Abu-Hashim, 2014 IL App (1st) 122997
• Standard of review: Manifest weight of evidence for factual findings; abuse of discretion for support awards

Practical Implications

• Communication dysfunction: When parties cannot communicate, courts may award sole decision-making even where both parents are capable; the more controlling/demanding parent may be disfavored
• Controlling behavior matters: Evidence of controlling conduct, anger issues, and self-harm (punching objects) can support findings under §602.5(c)(3) regarding mental/physical health concerns
• Voluntary unemployment: Courts will impute income when parent voluntarily leaves employment; declining unemployment benefits may be viewed unfavorably
• Caretaking functions vs. parenting time: Equal parenting time schedules don't establish equal caretaking if one parent works during their scheduled time
• Preserve arguments: Property distribution challenges require developed argument with supporting authority; bare assertions of unfairness result in forfeiture

Limitations/Caveats

• Rule 23 Order: This is an unpublished order with limited precedential value under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1)
• Highly fact-specific analysis; court emphasized deference to trial court's credibility determinations under Best v. Best
• Court declined to address whether parenting time standard is manifest weight alone or includes abuse of discretion component, noting lack of consensus among districts
• The "windfall" analysis from Bush (1989) applied without extensive discussion of whether modern shared-parenting calculations would change the analysis