In re Marriage of Seth B.
Nonprecedential Rule 23(b) written order.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it was entered on or after January 1, 2021, it may be cited for persuasive purposes under Rule 23(e)(1), but it is not binding precedent.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
Seth B. appealed a February 2026 Mason County order that continued supervised parenting time (marginally expanding it) and found by a preponderance of the evidence that unsupervised parenting time would seriously endanger the child. The Fourth District affirmed, holding the circuit court's serious-endangerment and best-interest determinations were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that a court need not expressly recite each section 602.7(b) factor.
Key Facts
Parties married December 2014; one child, O.B. (born November 2014); dissolution judgment September 2018; parenting plan order September 2019 giving Stephanie significant decision-making and Seth midweek, alternating-weekend, and summer parenting time.
Stephanie filed multiple petitions for rule to show cause (2021) regarding late exchanges and out-of-state travel, and a petition to modify the parenting plan.
August 2022 emergency petition; September 2022 order (on GAL recommendation) suspended Seth's parenting time and restricted communication; matter languished roughly 2½ years, partly due to Seth's counsel changes and health issues.
April 2025 agreed order gave Seth supervised parenting time of two hours every other weekend.
Evidence included thousands of images of texts/letters found by Seth's former stepfather, Scott L., purporting to show a campaign by Seth and his mother to damage Stephanie's reputation; testimony of unpaid child support and expenses; testimony that Seth coached O.B. to "hate" Stephanie and that O.B. felt like "a puppet."
The GAL described "really bad blood," reported O.B. said Seth would say things "he's not supposed to say" when the supervisor stepped away, and recommended expanding supervised time with a goal of transitioning to unsupervised.
February 2026 order: contempt findings on five rule petitions, $14,000 in attorney fees, continued supervision expanded to two hours and twenty minutes twice monthly, counseling ordered, and a preponderance finding of serious endangerment to O.B.'s mental, moral, or emotional health.
Procedural History
Circuit Court of Mason County (Judge Kevin D. Tippey). Hearing began March 2025, resumed and concluded December 2025; written decision February 2026; motion to reconsider denied May 2026. Appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District.
Holdings
Jurisdiction: Rule 304(b)(6) permits appeal of orders modifying allocation of parental responsibilities without a special finding; the Fourth District's Local Rule 113 neither confers nor restricts appellate jurisdiction (citing In re Marriage of Grossman ).
Merits: Reviewed under the manifest weight of the evidence standard, the order continuing supervised parenting time was supported by the record; a court must consider all relevant 602.7(b) factors but need not make explicit findings on each, and is presumed to know and apply the law.
Seth's section 603.10 argument failed because it targeted the September 2022 and agreed April 2025 orders, which were not before the court (appeal time lapsed; agreed order implicates invited error ), and because 603.10's requirements are partly incorporated into 602.7(b).
Legal Principles
750 ILCS 5/602.7(a), (b), 602.8(a), 603.10(a) (West 2024); Ill. S. Ct. Rs. 301, 303(a)(1), 304(a), 304(b)(6), 311(a); Fourth Dist. Local R. 113. Cases: In re Parentage of J.W. , 2013 IL 114817, ¶ 41; In re Marriage of Whitehead , 2018 IL App (5th) 170380, ¶ 21; In re Parentage of P.D. , 2017 IL App (2d) 170355, ¶ 18; In re Marriage of Betsy M. , 2015 IL App (1st) 151358, ¶ 61; In re Custody of G.L. , 2017 IL App (1st) 163171, ¶ 43; People v. Howery , 178 Ill. 2d 1, 32 (1997); In re Marriage of Jessica F. , 2024 IL App (4th) 231264, ¶ 48; In re Detention of Swope , 213 Ill. 2d 210, 217 (2004); In re Marriage of Mayes , 2018 IL App (4th) 180149, ¶ 56; distinguished Staszak , O'Halleran , and Grossman .
Practical Implications
An express serious-endangerment finding by a preponderance, tied to GAL testimony and credibility, will generally insulate a supervision order on appeal.
Do not rely on the absence of factor-by-factor findings; rebut the presumption that the court knew and applied the law with an affirmative record showing.
Appeal restriction orders promptly; agreeing to a supervised-visitation order risks invited error and forfeits later challenge to that order.
Delay caused by the appellant will undercut a "stale evidence" argument; marshal current supervisor reports and GAL statements showing changed conduct.
Jurisdiction: plead Rule 304(b)(6) and address Local Rule 113 in the jurisdictional statement, but note the local rule is not jurisdictional.
Limitations/Caveats
Rule 23 order—not precedent except under Rule 23(e)(1). The invited-error discussion of the April 2025 agreed order and the comment on the lapsed appeal from the September 2022 order are alternative/dicta; the binding holding is the manifest-weight affirmance of the February 2026 order.
Overview
Seth B. appealed a February 2026 Mason County order that continued supervised parenting time (marginally expanding it) and found by a preponderance of the evidence that unsupervised parenting time would seriously endanger the child. The Fourth District affirmed, holding the circuit court's serious-endangerment and best-interest determinations were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that a court need not expressly recite each section 602.7(b) factor.
Key Facts
Parties married December 2014; one child, O.B. (born November 2014); dissolution judgment September 2018; parenting plan order September 2019 giving Stephanie significant decision-making and Seth midweek, alternating-weekend, and summer parenting time.
Stephanie filed multiple petitions for rule to show cause (2021) regarding late exchanges and out-of-state travel, and a petition to modify the parenting plan.
August 2022 emergency petition; September 2022 order (on GAL recommendation) suspended Seth's parenting time and restricted communication; matter languished roughly 2½ years, partly due to Seth's counsel changes and health issues.
April 2025 agreed order gave Seth supervised parenting time of two hours every other weekend.
Evidence included thousands of images of texts/letters found by Seth's former stepfather, Scott L., purporting to show a campaign by Seth and his mother to damage Stephanie's reputation; testimony of unpaid child support and expenses; testimony that Seth coached O.B. to "hate" Stephanie and that O.B. felt like "a puppet."
The GAL described "really bad blood," reported O.B. said Seth would say things "he's not supposed to say" when the supervisor stepped away, and recommended expanding supervised time with a goal of transitioning to unsupervised.
February 2026 order: contempt findings on five rule petitions, $14,000 in attorney fees, continued supervision expanded to two hours and twenty minutes twice monthly, counseling ordered, and a preponderance finding of serious endangerment to O.B.'s mental, moral, or emotional health.
Procedural History
Circuit Court of Mason County (Judge Kevin D. Tippey). Hearing began March 2025, resumed and concluded December 2025; written decision February 2026; motion to reconsider denied May 2026. Appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District.
Holdings
Jurisdiction: Rule 304(b)(6) permits appeal of orders modifying allocation of parental responsibilities without a special finding; the Fourth District's Local Rule 113 neither confers nor restricts appellate jurisdiction (citing In re Marriage of Grossman ).
Merits: Reviewed under the manifest weight of the evidence standard, the order continuing supervised parenting time was supported by the record; a court must consider all relevant 602.7(b) factors but need not make explicit findings on each, and is presumed to know and apply the law.
Seth's section 603.10 argument failed because it targeted the September 2022 and agreed April 2025 orders, which were not before the court (appeal time lapsed; agreed order implicates invited error ), and because 603.10's requirements are partly incorporated into 602.7(b).
Legal Principles
750 ILCS 5/602.7(a), (b), 602.8(a), 603.10(a) (West 2024); Ill. S. Ct. Rs. 301, 303(a)(1), 304(a), 304(b)(6), 311(a); Fourth Dist. Local R. 113. Cases: In re Parentage of J.W. , 2013 IL 114817, ¶ 41; In re Marriage of Whitehead , 2018 IL App (5th) 170380, ¶ 21; In re Parentage of P.D. , 2017 IL App (2d) 170355, ¶ 18; In re Marriage of Betsy M. , 2015 IL App (1st) 151358, ¶ 61; In re Custody of G.L. , 2017 IL App (1st) 163171, ¶ 43; People v. Howery , 178 Ill. 2d 1, 32 (1997); In re Marriage of Jessica F. , 2024 IL App (4th) 231264, ¶ 48; In re Detention of Swope , 213 Ill. 2d 210, 217 (2004); In re Marriage of Mayes , 2018 IL App (4th) 180149, ¶ 56; distinguished Staszak , O'Halleran , and Grossman .
Practical Implications
An express serious-endangerment finding by a preponderance, tied to GAL testimony and credibility, will generally insulate a supervision order on appeal.
Do not rely on the absence of factor-by-factor findings; rebut the presumption that the court knew and applied the law with an affirmative record showing.
Appeal restriction orders promptly; agreeing to a supervised-visitation order risks invited error and forfeits later challenge to that order.
Delay caused by the appellant will undercut a "stale evidence" argument; marshal current supervisor reports and GAL statements showing changed conduct.
Jurisdiction: plead Rule 304(b)(6) and address Local Rule 113 in the jurisdictional statement, but note the local rule is not jurisdictional.
Limitations/Caveats
Rule 23 order—not precedent except under Rule 23(e)(1). The invited-error discussion of the April 2025 agreed order and the comment on the lapsed appeal from the September 2022 order are alternative/dicta; the binding holding is the manifest-weight affirmance of the February 2026 order.
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 Your Situation?
Start with a conflict-check intake. If cleared, our office will contact you about next steps.
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.