Jeremy T. v. Kimberly S.
Nonprecedential Rule 23(b) written order. Because it was entered on or after January 1, 2021, it may be cited for persuasive purposes under Rule 23(e)(1), but it is not binding precedent. Status is based on the stored -U public-domain citation; verify the official disposition and later docket history.
Case Analysis
Overview
In this accelerated Rule 23 appeal, the Fourth District reversed a modified parenting plan because the trial court never made the threshold findings required by section 610.5(a) or 610.5(c) of the Marriage Act before modifying an agreed 2013 allocation order. The court also reversed a downward child support deviation premised on the payor's attorney and GAL fee obligations, and reversed an order requiring the father to pay half the GAL fees while his fee waiver remained in effect. The case was reversed and remanded with directions.
Key Facts
Never-married parents of G.L.T. (born 2011); paternity established by consent; a March 27, 2013, agreed order gave joint legal custody and a "3-1-2, 3-2-2" rotating schedule with exchanges "after w/s" (after work/school).
A 2016 modification petition by the mother was denied for failure to show a substantial change in circumstances.
In 2024 the father filed pro se petitions for rule to show cause; the mother then petitioned to modify parental responsibilities, parenting time, and child support.
Disputes centered on the ambiguous "after w/s" language, grandparents picking up the child at the bus stop, repeated police involvement, and an order of protection against the grandparents.
Hearing spanned 10 days over 10 months, with 1,571 pages of exhibits, body-worn camera video, an in camera interview (child preferred more time with father), and GAL reports recommending parenting time remain evenly split.
The court's written ruling repeatedly stated it disliked the ambiguous order and found it "in need of modification," then proceeded directly to best-interests factors.
Guideline support was $169.43/month; the court ordered $150 due to the mother's attorney fees and upcoming GAL fee division.
The father's full waiver of court fees was granted by docket entry December 12, 2024; the court nonetheless split $6,457.50 in GAL fees evenly.
Procedural History
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Rock Island County (No. 13F78, Judge Derek L. Hancks) following the January 30, 2026, "Ruling and Parenting Plan." Decided by the Appellate Court, Fourth District. The court found good cause for issuing its decision outside the 150-day period of Rule 311(a)(5) and denied a pending motion to supplement the record with a therapist's letter never admitted below.
Holdings
The trial court erred as a matter of law by modifying the agreed parenting plan without first finding changed circumstances under section 610.5(a) or a substantial change by a preponderance under section 610.5(c) ; whether the burden was met is reviewed for manifest weight, but whether the correct legal standard was applied is reviewed de novo . None of the section 610.5(e) exceptions applied.
The court abused its discretion by sua sponte deviating downward from the guidelines based on the payor's personal obligations to pay her attorney fees and share of GAL fees; remanded to set guideline support.
The court abused its discretion by ordering the father to pay half the GAL fees while a full fee waiver was in effect, without the 10 days' written notice and hearing required by section 5-105(f-10) of the Procedure Code.
Motion to supplement the record denied; under Rule 329 the record may be supplemented only with documents actually before the trial court.
Legal Principles
750 ILCS 5/610.5(a), (c), (e) (West 2024); 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.3), (a)(3.4); 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c), 602.7; 750 ILCS 46/802, 46/808; 735 ILCS 5/5-105(a)(1), (b), (f), (f-10). Relying on Reynolds v. Reynolds , 2026 IL 132627, the court applies the two-step framework: threshold change-in-circumstances finding, then best interests. Also cited: In re Marriage of Gorr , In re Marriage of Vickers , In re Marriage of Gualandi , In re Marriage of Williams , In re Marriage of Berberet , In re Marriage of Juiris , In re Marriage of Vanduyne , Schmitt v. Woods , In re Marriage of Stanley , Lucas v. Prisoner Review Board , Kuykendall v. Schneidewind .
Practical Implications
Always obtain an express threshold finding on the record; judicial dislike of an ambiguous agreed order is not a substitute for a statutory change-in-circumstances finding.
Identify which subsection governs: parenting time (610.5(a)) versus other plan/allocation terms (610.5(c)), which carries the higher substantial-change preponderance standard.
Consider pleading a 610.5(e) exception (minor modification, six-month actual arrangement, agreement) where no change can be shown.
Attorney fees and GAL fee obligations are personal debts and cannot justify a downward support deviation; guideline deviations require written findings tied to the child's best interests.
If a client holds a fee waiver, insist on the 10-day notice and hearing before the court revisits it, even where income has changed.
Counterpoint: the court expressly said a change in circumstances could potentially be found on remand, so the reversal is procedural, not a merits ruling.
Limitations/Caveats
Rule 23 order; not precedent except under Rule 23(e)(1). The discussion of the 610.5(e) exceptions and the court's commentary on preserving progress made pending appeal are guidance rather than binding holdings. The child support forfeiture discussion was excused, so the merits analysis there is discretionary review of a forfeited issue.
Overview
In this accelerated Rule 23 appeal, the Fourth District reversed a modified parenting plan because the trial court never made the threshold findings required by section 610.5(a) or 610.5(c) of the Marriage Act before modifying an agreed 2013 allocation order. The court also reversed a downward child support deviation premised on the payor's attorney and GAL fee obligations, and reversed an order requiring the father to pay half the GAL fees while his fee waiver remained in effect. The case was reversed and remanded with directions.
Key Facts
Never-married parents of G.L.T. (born 2011); paternity established by consent; a March 27, 2013, agreed order gave joint legal custody and a "3-1-2, 3-2-2" rotating schedule with exchanges "after w/s" (after work/school).
A 2016 modification petition by the mother was denied for failure to show a substantial change in circumstances.
In 2024 the father filed pro se petitions for rule to show cause; the mother then petitioned to modify parental responsibilities, parenting time, and child support.
Disputes centered on the ambiguous "after w/s" language, grandparents picking up the child at the bus stop, repeated police involvement, and an order of protection against the grandparents.
Hearing spanned 10 days over 10 months, with 1,571 pages of exhibits, body-worn camera video, an in camera interview (child preferred more time with father), and GAL reports recommending parenting time remain evenly split.
The court's written ruling repeatedly stated it disliked the ambiguous order and found it "in need of modification," then proceeded directly to best-interests factors.
Guideline support was $169.43/month; the court ordered $150 due to the mother's attorney fees and upcoming GAL fee division.
The father's full waiver of court fees was granted by docket entry December 12, 2024; the court nonetheless split $6,457.50 in GAL fees evenly.
Procedural History
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Rock Island County (No. 13F78, Judge Derek L. Hancks) following the January 30, 2026, "Ruling and Parenting Plan." Decided by the Appellate Court, Fourth District. The court found good cause for issuing its decision outside the 150-day period of Rule 311(a)(5) and denied a pending motion to supplement the record with a therapist's letter never admitted below.
Holdings
The trial court erred as a matter of law by modifying the agreed parenting plan without first finding changed circumstances under section 610.5(a) or a substantial change by a preponderance under section 610.5(c) ; whether the burden was met is reviewed for manifest weight, but whether the correct legal standard was applied is reviewed de novo . None of the section 610.5(e) exceptions applied.
The court abused its discretion by sua sponte deviating downward from the guidelines based on the payor's personal obligations to pay her attorney fees and share of GAL fees; remanded to set guideline support.
The court abused its discretion by ordering the father to pay half the GAL fees while a full fee waiver was in effect, without the 10 days' written notice and hearing required by section 5-105(f-10) of the Procedure Code.
Motion to supplement the record denied; under Rule 329 the record may be supplemented only with documents actually before the trial court.
Legal Principles
750 ILCS 5/610.5(a), (c), (e) (West 2024); 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.3), (a)(3.4); 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c), 602.7; 750 ILCS 46/802, 46/808; 735 ILCS 5/5-105(a)(1), (b), (f), (f-10). Relying on Reynolds v. Reynolds , 2026 IL 132627, the court applies the two-step framework: threshold change-in-circumstances finding, then best interests. Also cited: In re Marriage of Gorr , In re Marriage of Vickers , In re Marriage of Gualandi , In re Marriage of Williams , In re Marriage of Berberet , In re Marriage of Juiris , In re Marriage of Vanduyne , Schmitt v. Woods , In re Marriage of Stanley , Lucas v. Prisoner Review Board , Kuykendall v. Schneidewind .
Practical Implications
Always obtain an express threshold finding on the record; judicial dislike of an ambiguous agreed order is not a substitute for a statutory change-in-circumstances finding.
Identify which subsection governs: parenting time (610.5(a)) versus other plan/allocation terms (610.5(c)), which carries the higher substantial-change preponderance standard.
Consider pleading a 610.5(e) exception (minor modification, six-month actual arrangement, agreement) where no change can be shown.
Attorney fees and GAL fee obligations are personal debts and cannot justify a downward support deviation; guideline deviations require written findings tied to the child's best interests.
If a client holds a fee waiver, insist on the 10-day notice and hearing before the court revisits it, even where income has changed.
Counterpoint: the court expressly said a change in circumstances could potentially be found on remand, so the reversal is procedural, not a merits ruling.
Limitations/Caveats
Rule 23 order; not precedent except under Rule 23(e)(1). The discussion of the 610.5(e) exceptions and the court's commentary on preserving progress made pending appeal are guidance rather than binding holdings. The child support forfeiture discussion was excused, so the merits analysis there is discretionary review of a forfeited issue.
Disclaimer: This case summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. Always consult with a licensed attorney for specific legal questions.
Questions About Modification or Enforcement?
Start with a conflict-check intake. If cleared, our office can discuss the existing order and requested relief.
Start Conflict-Check IntakeLegal Assistant
This tool answers general questions about the text of this summary. It does not give legal advice, it does not know the facts of your case, and its answers may be wrong.
Disclaimer: This AI analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Always verify any AI-generated content against the official court opinion.