In re Marriage of Tate

Overview

In re Marriage of Tate , 2026 IL App (5th) 260228-U, affirmed the circuit court's allocation of majority parenting time to the mother over two minor children. The appellate court conducted a de novo review because the judge who entered the allocation order was not the judge who presided over the trial, yet found no error in the court's analysis of the statutory best-interest factors under 750 ILCS 5/602.7 . The court also denied the mother's motion for sanctions based on the father's apparent use of AI to draft his appellate brief.

Key Facts

Two minor children: Reagan (born 2010) and Briggs (born 2017); Briggs had an IEP for cognitive delay and sensory issues

Mother was a local schoolteacher; Father worked as a sheet metal worker approximately one hour away

Mother performed the majority of caretaking functions both during the marriage and after separation in January 2021

Father did not know Briggs' grade, teacher, or specific diagnosis; did not attend IEP meetings or parent-teacher conferences

A January 2021 domestic violence incident resulted in Father being charged with multiple offenses; he pled guilty to resisting arrest after barricading himself in a bedroom with then-3-year-old Briggs

An agreed temporary order from January 2022 gave Father alternating weekends and Tuesday/Thursday evenings; Father never moved to modify it

Father never paid full child support and did not use his summer parenting weeks in two of the years

The GAL recommended approximately 45% parenting time for Father; the court awarded less

Procedural History

Fayette County Circuit Court, case No. 21-D-51. Mother filed for dissolution June 2021. Agreed temporary parenting order entered January 2022. Two-day trial held January and April 2025 before Judge Morrison, who later recused. Judge Lolie entered the parenting time order on February 17, 2026, based solely on trial transcripts. Appeal taken under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(6) and expedited under Rule 311(a) . Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed.

Holdings

Primary holding: The circuit court did not err in allocating majority parenting time to Mother. The court applied de novo review because the deciding judge ruled solely on transcripts and was in no better position than the appellate court to assess credibility, though noted the same result would obtain under abuse of discretion/manifest weight standards.

Father's claim that the allocation constituted a de facto parenting time restriction was rejected; an unequal allocation is not a "restriction" under Section 600(i) .

Mother's motion for sanctions based on Father's apparent AI-generated brief with fabricated or unsupported citations was denied , as the violations did not hinder appellate review.

Legal Principles

750 ILCS 5/602.7(b) — 17-factor best-interest analysis for parenting time allocation

750 ILCS 5/600(i) — Definition of "restriction of parenting time" (limitation or condition, including supervision); unequal allocation alone is not a restriction

In re Marriage of Whitehead , 2018 IL App (5th) 170380 — Significant deference to trial court on parenting time

In re M.D. , 2021 IL App (1st) 210595 — De novo review appropriate when trial court decides on stipulated/documentary record without observing witnesses

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137(a) — Certification obligations for pro se filings; AI-generated briefs with fabricated citations implicate this rule

Practical Implications

Standard of review shifts when judges change: When a different judge decides based on transcripts, appellate courts may apply de novo review — practitioners should anticipate this and build the strongest possible trial record

Agreed temporary orders matter: Even though entered "without prejudice," they establish a course of conduct under §602.7(b)(4); failing to seek modification can be used against a party

Proactive parental involvement is required: A parent cannot claim exclusion from IEP meetings or school activities without demonstrating affirmative efforts to participate

Unequal parenting time ≠ restriction: Practitioners should not conflate a lesser allocation with a statutory restriction under §600(i)

AI-generated briefs: While sanctions were denied here, the court flagged Rule 137 concerns — practitioners and pro se parties must independently verify all AI-generated citations and legal propositions

Domestic violence evidence: Even where criminal charges are partially dismissed, the court may consider testimony about physical violence under §602.7(b)(11) and (14)

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order — it is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). The de novo review discussion, while analytically significant, is persuasive dicta in terms of establishing when that standard applies to parenting cases with substitute judges, as the court noted it would reach the same result under any standard. The court's treatment of AI-generated briefs is also non-binding but signals growing judicial awareness of the issue.