In re Marriage of Warren

Overview

This case involves a father's appeal of post-judgment modifications to a parenting plan. The Third District affirmed the circuit court's decision to grant the mother equal parenting time following her move closer to the father's residence, and affirmed denial of the father's contempt petition. However, the court reversed the trial court's sua sponte award of decision-making authority over the children's professional acting jobs to the mother, finding that issue was not properly before the court.

Key Facts

• Parents divorced in 2023 after 15-year marriage; three minor children
• Original parenting plan gave father majority parenting time and sole decision-making over educational and extracurricular activities (explicitly including "professional acting and competitive dance")
• Mother initially lived in Oak Park; father and children in Naperville
• Mother moved to Naperville in July 2024, now living seven minutes from father
• Father filed contempt petition alleging mother diverted children's acting earnings to new accounts and failed to repay funds previously ordered restored
• Father appeared pro se throughout proceedings and on appeal

Procedural History

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County (18th Judicial Circuit), Judge Neal W. Cerne presiding. Following the November 2023 dissolution judgment, mother filed a petition to modify parenting time under 750 ILCS 5/610.5 in May 2024. Father filed a petition for rule to show cause. After a January 2025 hearing, the court modified parenting time to 50/50, denied contempt, and awarded mother decision-making over acting employment. Father's motion to reconsider was denied.

Holdings

1. Affirmed: Mother's move to Naperville constituted a substantial change in circumstances under Section 610.5(c), and modification to equal parenting time was in children's best interests. Standard: Manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Affirmed: Denial of contempt petition was proper where the original order lacked a specific dollar amount to be repaid, making it unenforceable. Father also failed to properly admit bank statements into evidence. Standard: Abuse of discretion (evidentiary rulings); manifest weight (contempt finding).
3. Reversed: The court improperly awarded mother decision-making authority over professional acting jobs sua sponte when no party filed a motion seeking modification of decision-making responsibilities, violating father's due process rights to notice and opportunity to be heard.

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 5/610.5(c): Modification requires (1) substantial change in circumstances arising after entry of the order or not anticipated therein, and (2) modification serves children's best interests
• 750 ILCS 5/610.5(a): Modifications to decision-making responsibilities (excluding parenting time) cannot be sought within two years absent affidavits showing serious endangerment
• 750 ILCS 5/602.7(b): Best interests factors must be considered, but explicit findings on each factor are not required (In re Custody of G.L.)
• Courts must implement parenting schedules based on current circumstances, not speculative future events (In re Marriage of Virgin)
• Contempt requires a clear, concise order that is easily understood (People ex rel. City of Chicago v. Le Mirage)
• Courts cannot adjudicate issues not raised in proper pleadings (Suriano v. Lafeber; In re Custody of Ayala)

Practical Implications

• Draft precise orders: Contempt enforcement requires specific, quantifiable directives—orders requiring repayment must state exact dollar amounts
• Relocation cases: A parent's move significantly closer to the other parent can constitute a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification, even if the possibility was mentioned in the original proceedings
• Preserve the record: Pro se litigants and attorneys alike must properly offer exhibits into evidence; using documents to refresh recollection does not admit them
• Scope of relief: Courts cannot sua sponte reallocate decision-making authority without proper pleadings—practitioners should object immediately if court ventures beyond issues raised
• GAL reports matter: Ensure GAL reports addressing best interests are included in the appellate record; their absence may result in presumption favoring the trial court's ruling
• Two-year bar: Section 610.5(a)'s two-year waiting period for decision-making modifications remains a significant procedural barrier absent endangerment allegations

Limitations/Caveats

• This is a Rule 23 order and may not be cited as precedent except in limited circumstances under Rule 23(e)(1)
• The court's discussion of what constitutes an "extracurricular activity" versus "employment" was not resolved on the merits—the reversal was procedural, leaving this distinction open for future litigation
• The incomplete appellate record (missing GAL report) limited review; practitioners should ensure complete records to avoid adverse presumptions
• The holding on sua sponte modifications is binding; the discussion of whether acting jobs fall within "extracurricular activities" is arguably dicta given the procedural disposition