In re Marriage of Grossman

Overview

This case involves a mother's appeal from the circuit court's denial of her petitions to restrict and modify the father's parenting time following a contentious post-decree history including orders of protection. The Second District affirmed, holding that while the father's conduct seriously endangered the children's mental health (supporting restrictions on decision-making and mandatory anger management), the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce his parenting time.

Key Facts

• Three minor children (M.R., N.R., and E.R.) with parenting time primarily to mother; father had alternating weekends and midweek time
• Father sent threatening text messages to mother in a group chat with the children on Mother's Day 2024, resulting in a two-year plenary order of protection
• Father made disparaging comments about 10-year-old E.R.'s weight; brothers subsequently forced E.R. to do a "weigh-in" after dinner with father
• Father refused to take E.R. to therapy, threatened her therapist with licensing complaints, and sent hostile emails to the GAL
• E.R. reported feeling "invisible" at father's house; her anxiety decreased during temporary reduced parenting time
• GAL recommended reduced parenting time citing father's inability to regulate emotions and refusal to cooperate with professionals

Procedural History

Lake County Circuit Court, Judge Patricia L. Cornell presiding. Judgment of dissolution entered October 2020 with allocation judgment. Mother filed petition to restrict parenting time (July 2024) and petition to modify (August 2024). Following a two-day evidentiary hearing, the court entered a September 4, 2025 order denying both petitions but imposing anger management, a parenting coordinator, and restricting father's decision-making on extracurriculars. Mother appealed under Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(6).

Holdings

1. Credibility finding affirmed (manifest weight standard): The court's finding that father was credible was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, despite his "abrasive" demeanor
2. Petition to restrict denied—affirmed (abuse of discretion standard): While father's conduct "seriously endangered" the children's mental health under 750 ILCS 5/603.10(a), the court did not abuse its discretion in selecting anger management and decision-making restrictions rather than reducing parenting time
3. Petition to modify denied—affirmed (manifest weight standard): Although the appellate court found a substantial change in circumstances existed (disagreeing with the trial court), the denial of modification was not against the manifest weight of the evidence under the best-interests analysis

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 5/603.10(a): Restriction requires finding by preponderance that parent's conduct "seriously endangered" child's mental/moral/physical health or "significantly impaired" emotional development; court then has discretion to select appropriate restrictions
• 750 ILCS 5/610.5(c): Modification requires substantial change in circumstances plus best-interests finding
• 750 ILCS 5/602.7: Best-interests factors for parenting time allocation
• The "seriously endangered" standard is "onerous, stringent, and rigorous" per In re Parentage of J.W., 2013 IL 114817
• Court clarified that conduct supporting restriction need not be categorized as specifically impacting parenting time—any seriously endangering conduct suffices

Practical Implications

• Two-step restriction analysis: Practitioners must first establish serious endangerment, then argue for specific restrictions—the court retains broad discretion on remedy selection even after endangerment is proven
• Document pattern behavior: The court credited evidence of father's communications with GAL, therapist, and mother; preserve hostile communications for evidentiary use
• GAL reports matter but aren't dispositive: Court found GAL credible but declined to follow her parenting time recommendations
• Temporary modifications can demonstrate impact: E.R.'s improvement during reduced parenting time was noted but insufficient alone to mandate permanent reduction
• Counterargument: Father's conduct toward adults (not directly toward children) may be distinguished; court found he "shielded" children from extent of his opinions

Limitations/Caveats

• This is a Rule 23 order—not precedent except under the limited circumstances of Rule 23(e)(1)
• The appellate court's finding that a substantial change in circumstances existed (disagreeing with trial court) appears to be dicta, as the court ultimately affirmed on best-interests grounds
• The court expressed "significant concerns" about father's behavior but deferred to trial court's discretion—suggesting a different trial judge might reach different conclusions on similar facts
• Case-specific: outcome heavily dependent on trial court's extensive familiarity with parties over years of litigation