In re Marriage of Ali

Overview

This Rule 23 order affirms the Du Page County circuit court's allocation of parenting time and decision-making authority in a dissolution proceeding. The appellate court upheld findings that the father had coached the children to make statements against the mother and her boyfriend, rejected the father's challenges to evidentiary rulings, and found the court properly relied on the section 604.10(b) evaluator's recommendations in awarding the mother primary parenting time during the school year.

Key Facts

• Parties married in 2014 with four minor children (born 2015-2020); mother filed for dissolution in September 2022
• Father initially had approximately 60% parenting time; mother filed emergency motion in March 2024 alleging father was coaching children and engaging in alienating behavior
• Court found father had been coaching children and ordered supervised parenting time; appointed Dr. Mark Drummond as 604.10(b) evaluator
• Guardian ad litem Jeelani testified children admitted father told them what to say, promised pets as rewards, and threatened to take away gaming systems if they didn't comply
• Four DCFS investigations into abuse allegations against mother and boyfriend were all deemed unfounded
• Multiple witnesses (supervisors, therapists) testified they did not observe coaching, but children exhibited concerning behaviors including looking to father before answering questions

Procedural History

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County (18th Judicial Circuit), Case No. 22-DC-873, Judge Robert E. Douglas presiding. Bench trial commenced December 2024, continued to September 2025 after mother's motion to reopen proofs regarding new DCFS investigation. Judgment entered October 6, 2025. Third District Appellate Court affirmed March 20, 2026.

Holdings

1. Evidentiary ruling affirmed (abuse of discretion standard): Circuit court properly denied father's motion to recall GAL, examine DCFS investigators, and examine/disqualify mother's counsel. Statements to DCFS accurately reflected court's prior coaching finding.
2. Coaching finding affirmed (manifest weight standard): Evidence supported finding father coached children, including children's own admissions to GAL, scripted language, and nonverbal behaviors observed by multiple witnesses.
3. Parenting time allocation affirmed (manifest weight standard): Court properly considered statutory factors under 750 ILCS 5/602.7 and appropriately relied on evaluator's recommendations while exercising independent judgment.

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 5/602.7: Parenting time must be allocated per child's best interests considering all relevant factors; court need not make explicit findings on each factor
• 750 ILCS 5/604.10(b): Governs appointment of independent evaluators for custody recommendations
• Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a): Attorney-witness disqualification requires actual likelihood of testimony
• Presumption of regularity: Reviewing court presumes trial court knew and followed applicable law (In re Custody of G.L., 2017 IL App (1st) 163171)
• Attorney disqualification: "Drastic measure" requiring showing that Rules of Professional Conduct preclude continued representation (Pederson v. Houpt)

Practical Implications

• Document coaching evidence thoroughly: GAL's detailed testimony about specific incidents, children's admissions, and observed behaviors proved persuasive despite contrary testimony from supervisors
• 604.10(b) evaluator recommendations carry significant weight: Court gave "great deference" to evaluator's testimony when found "highly credible"
• Prior court findings matter: Father's challenge to DCFS-related testimony failed because statements accurately reflected court's existing (unvacated) coaching finding
• Children's stated preferences may be discounted: Court properly declined to credit children's preference for father given coaching finding and pattern of unfounded abuse allegations
• Counterargument: When challenging coaching findings, emphasize testimony from neutral supervisors and therapists who observed interactions directly

Limitations/Caveats

• Rule 23 order: Not precedent except in limited circumstances under Rule 23(e)(1)
• Highly fact-specific analysis of coaching evidence; outcome dependent on GAL's detailed observations and children's own statements
• Court's statement that it "did not consider" children's wishes factor (due to credibility concerns) is dicta regarding methodology—the holding is simply that the allocation was not against manifest weight