In re Marriage of Sunghay

Overview

This Rule 23 order addresses a mother's appeal from findings of indirect civil contempt for violating a 2014 custody agreement by restricting the father's parenting time. The First District vacated the contempt findings due to an invalid purge provision but affirmed the circuit court's decision to continue joint decision-making for medical and educational matters.

Key Facts

• Parents divorced in 2014 with joint legal custody; mother designated residential parent with father having midweek and alternating weekend parenting time
• Father's overnight parenting time ceased after Labor Day 2022; dinner visits stopped September 2023
• Child (A.S.) exhibited significant anxiety, crying, and reluctance to visit father; therapists recommended against forcing visitation
• GAL and court-appointed psychologist (Dr. Gardner) found no evidence of parental alienation; both noted father's failure to acknowledge his role in the estrangement
• Reunification therapy made no meaningful progress; child reported feeling uncomfortable and unheard by father
• Father filed three petitions for rule to show cause (2018, 2020, 2021) alleging interference with parenting time

Procedural History

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Domestic Relations Division (Case No. 13 D5 30753), Judge Bernadette Barrett presiding. Father filed three petitions for rules to show cause. After a March 2024 hearing, the court found mother in indirect civil contempt on July 11, 2024, and modified the parenting allocation. Mother's motion to reconsider was granted in part on April 30, 2025. First District, Fourth Division affirmed in part and vacated in part.

Holdings

1. Contempt finding vacated: Although mother received adequate due process (notice and opportunity to be heard) despite no formal rule to show cause being issued, the contempt order lacked a valid purge provision. Requiring GAL to recommend a therapist improperly placed "keys to the cell" in a third party's hands. (Standard: abuse of discretion/manifest weight of evidence)
2. Joint decision-making affirmed: Under the 2016 allocation framework (750 ILCS 5/602.5), inability to cooperate is one factor among many—not determinative. The court properly found continued joint decision-making for medical and educational matters served the child's best interests. (Standard: manifest weight of evidence)

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 5/602.5: Decision-making allocation based on child's best interests; parental cooperation is one of multiple factors, not a prerequisite for joint allocation
• 750 ILCS 5/607.5(c)(3), 607.6(a)(3): Court may order counseling for parenting time violations independent of contempt
• Civil contempt purge requirements: Contemnor must hold "keys to his cell" (In re Marriage of Logston); third-party participation invalidates purge (Bank of America v. Freed)
• Due process for indirect civil contempt: Requires notice and opportunity to be heard; formal rule to show cause not strictly required if actual notice provided (Milton v. Therra)
• Custodial parent obligations: Cannot escape duty to facilitate visitation by deferring to child's preferences (In re Marriage of Charous)

Practical Implications

• Draft specific purge provisions: When seeking contempt, ensure the proposed purge is within the contemnor's sole control—avoid conditions requiring third-party action
• Post-2016 decision-making arguments: Inability to cooperate alone no longer defeats joint decision-making; practitioners must address the full statutory factor analysis under § 602.5(c)
• Child resistance cases: Document all efforts to encourage visitation; obtain therapist recommendations in writing; a child's reluctance does not excuse noncompliance but may inform remedy
• Contempt vs. enforcement remedies: Consider § 607.5/607.6 remedies (counseling, makeup time) as alternatives that don't require valid purge provisions
• Distinguish from alienation: Expert testimony finding no alienation can defeat contempt claims or support modified parenting time rather than enforcement

Limitations/Caveats

• Rule 23 Order: Not precedent except under limited circumstances of Rule 23(e)(1); persuasive only
• Forfeiture: Mother forfeited broader challenge to joint decision-making by not arguing the finding was against manifest weight of evidence
• Dicta: Discussion of pre-2016 custody law and the shift to allocation framework is explanatory context, not binding holding
• The court's order requiring counseling was not vacated—only the contempt finding; remedial orders under § 607.5/607.6 remain valid