In re Marriage of Hoffmeister

Overview

In In re Marriage of Hoffmeister and Procaccio , the Second District affirmed a Lake County order reducing the father's parenting time to supervised visits (one weeknight and alternating Saturdays for two hours) and awarding the mother sole significant decision-making responsibility. The court held the trial court's serious endangerment finding under section 603.10 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the restrictions imposed were not an abuse of discretion.

Key Facts

Never-married parents of N.P. (born 2019); a May 2022 allocation judgment gave joint decision-making, with mother as custodial parent for schooling and majority parenting time.

N.P. was diagnosed with PTSD by Dr. O'Koon, attributed to witnessing the parents' sustained physical and verbal conflict; he required special education services and had been removed from several daycares.

Father withdrew consent for N.P.'s therapy with Dr. Benton, missed and unilaterally cancelled sessions, and—per the child's disclosures to Benton—told N.P. not to speak with his therapist.

Father's family therapy with Bialeschki terminated after he recorded sessions without permission; co-parenting therapy with Crunkilton-Stiegel ended because she found his conduct abusive and directed at engaging the mother rather than therapy.

Father blamed his failure to attend court-ordered therapy on the mother's insurance; the trial court rejected this, noting her insurance covered only her sessions with N.P.

Father had prior criminal and order-of-protection history; he violated OFW-only communication orders and told N.P. the GAL was a liar.

The trial court found the father not credible; the mother was also admonished (texts telling him to kill himself), but Benton found her "critical to the child's success."

The GAL recommended sole decision-making for the mother and supervised, restricted parenting time for the father; Anast and O'Koon recommended co-parenting therapy, which the court rejected as unworkable.

Procedural History

Circuit Court of Lake County, No. 20-F-644 (Judge Patricia L. Cornell). Following years of competing motions, a 604.10(b) evaluation, GAL reports, and hearings in October 2024 and March 2025, the court denied one emergency motion (January 2025) but on May 19, 2025, restricted the father's parenting time and awarded sole decision-making to the mother. Father appealed. No court reporter was present; the appellate court relied primarily on written expert reports and the trial court's written findings due to an ambiguous bystander's report and unexplained exhibits.

Holdings

The changes were restrictions under section 603.10, not modifications under 610.5, because their purpose was to limit conduct to protect the child's mental health ( In re Marriage of Chehaiber ).

The serious endangerment finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence : the father failed to engage in trauma-based therapy needed to parent N.P. and actively sabotaged N.P.'s therapy.

The specific restrictions—supervised, reduced parenting time and sole decision-making to mother—were not an abuse of discretion , given the father's noncompliance with orders and the nonviability of joint decision-making.

Legal Principles

750 ILCS 5/603.10(a) (preponderance standard; court "shall enter orders as necessary to protect the child," including reduced/supervised parenting time and reduced decision-making); 750 ILCS 5/610.5; 750 ILCS 5/604.10(b). In re K.E.B. (endangerment standard more onerous than best interests); Chehaiber (purpose, not result, distinguishes restriction from modification); Hipes & Lozano (manifest weight for endangerment; abuse of discretion for necessity of restrictions); In re Marriage of Bates ; In re Marriage of Haken ; In re H.B.-H. ; In re Marriage of Kriley (restriction permissible where path to restoration preserved).

Practical Implications

Undermining a child's therapy—telling a child not to speak to a therapist, surreptitious recording, withdrawing consent—can independently support serious endangerment, even absent proven physical abuse.

Noncompliance with therapy orders is not excused by cost or insurance disputes; document good-faith efforts contemporaneously.

Courts may reject expert co-parenting recommendations based on the judge's own extended observation of the parties; GAL recommendations plus credibility findings can carry the day.

Preserve the record: absence of a transcript and an unclear bystander's report left the appellant reliant on the trial court's own findings.

Distinguishing point: mutual misconduct does not preclude restriction against only one parent where the other is engaged in treatment; and orders preserving a pathway back to unsupervised time are more likely to be affirmed.

Limitations/Caveats

Rule 23(b) order—not precedential except under Rule 23(e)(1); citable only for limited purposes. The restriction-versus-modification characterization and the endangerment/necessity rulings are holdings; observations about co-parenting with the mother's ex-husband and the court's speculation about the father's motives in therapy are explanatory dicta. Rule 311(a)(5) good-cause finding noted for the delayed decision.