In re Parentage of A.L.G

Overview

This consolidated appeal in In re Parentage of A.L.G., 2026 IL App (3d) 250124, involves three appeals arising from a protracted parentage dispute in Du Page County. The Third District reversed two direct criminal contempt findings against the mother's attorney for "speaking objections," affirmed $16,257 in Rule 137 sanctions against the mother and her attorney, reversed and remanded the retroactive child support start date and the denial of a name change request, and affirmed all other posttrial rulings.

Key Facts

• Stephen Guzman and Breanne Selin are parents of A.L.G. (born Dec. 14, 2017); Stephen filed a parenting petition on Jan. 9, 2020; Breanne filed a counterpetition seeking child support on March 9, 2020
• The case involved 15 days of trial and over 30 posttrial motions filed by Breanne and her attorney, Michael Canulli
• During a sanctions hearing, the trial court found Canulli in direct criminal contempt twice for making "speaking objections" after being admonished, imposing $25 fines
• The trial court awarded $16,257 in Rule 137 sanctions, finding Breanne's motions were filed for improper purposes including unnecessary delay
• A central recurring claim was Stephen's failure to disclose he was expecting a child with a third party during proceedings
• The case was reassigned from Judge Felice to Judge Riordan after trial

Procedural History

Circuit Court of Du Page County (18th Judicial Circuit), No. 20-F-16. The allocation judgment was entered June 7, 2023, and affirmed in In re Parentage of A.G., 2024 IL App (3d) 240003-U. The case was reassigned to Judge Riordan for posttrial matters. Three appeals were consolidated: No. 3-25-0124 (contempt), No. 3-25-0205 (sanctions), and No. 3-25-0293 (posttrial rulings). No appellee's brief was filed.

Holdings

1. Direct criminal contempt reversed — The two cited objections did not constitute contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. The objections were not drastically improper speaking objections sufficient to justify criminal contempt. (Standard: sufficiency of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt)
2. Rule 137 sanctions affirmed — The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $16,257 based on over 30 duplicative, vexatious posttrial motions. (Standard: abuse of discretion)
3. Retroactive child support reversed and remanded — Under 750 ILCS 46/802(a), support should be retroactive to March 10, 2020 (date of service of Breanne's counterpetition), not January 1, 2021. (Standard: abuse of discretion)
4. Name change denial reversed and remanded — The trial court erred by denying the name change under 735 ILCS 5/21-101(c) without holding an evidentiary hearing on the best-interests factors. (Standard: clear and convincing evidence required)
5. All other posttrial rulings affirmed, including denial of reopening proofs, child support calculations, health insurance premium allocation, and case reassignment.

Legal Principles

• Direct criminal contempt: Must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; conduct must be "calculated to embarrass, hinder or obstruct" the court (People v. Siegel, 94 Ill. 2d 167; People v. Simac, 161 Ill. 2d 297). Contempt will not stand where attorney acted in good faith to serve client.
• Ill. S. Ct. R. 137: Sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion (Lake Environmental, Inc. v. Arnold, 2015 IL 118110). The In re Estate of Smith test was expressly abrogated; reviewing courts examine the entire record, not just the trial court's stated reasoning.
• 750 ILCS 46/802(a): Retroactive child support commences from date summons is served on the counterpetition seeking support under the Parentage Act.
• 735 ILCS 5/21-101(c): Minor's name change requires clear and convincing evidence that the change serves the child's best interests, with consideration of statutory factors.
• Speaking objections: The court provided a detailed definition and explained the trial court's inherent authority to prohibit them, citing federal and state authority.
• Fee petitions: Best practice requires affidavits, detailed invoices in 6-minute increments, and evidence of reasonableness, though an evidentiary hearing is not always required (Williams Montgomery & John Ltd. v. Broaddus, 2017 IL App (1st) 161063).

Practical Implications

• Speaking objections: While trial courts may properly prohibit them, attorneys should know that violating such an order does not automatically constitute criminal contempt — the bar remains high, requiring conduct beyond mere aggressive advocacy
• Rule 137 sanctions: Filing repetitive, duplicative posttrial motions — even if reframed in different language — exposes both counsel and client to sanctions; practitioners should carefully evaluate whether each filing adds genuine value
• Retroactive child support: In parentage cases, the retroactive start date is tied to service of the pleading seeking support under the Parentage Act, not the initial filing date of the case — practitioners must identify the correct triggering pleading
• Name changes for minors: A trial court cannot deny a name change request without an evidentiary hearing on the best-interests factors under 735 ILCS 5/21-101(c); practitioners should insist on such a hearing
• Fee petitions: Follow best practices with detailed affidavits and itemized billing; failure to do so risks denial, though courts may have sufficient information from the proceedings themselves
• Successor judges: A reassigned judge can rule on posttrial motions after reviewing transcripts; challengers bear the burden of proving the judge lacked adequate knowledge

Limitations/Caveats

• This is a published opinion (2026 IL App (3d) 250124) with full precedential value
• The court's extensive discussion of speaking objections — including definitions and policy rationale — is largely dicta, as the holding turned on whether the specific objections met the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for criminal contempt
• The court acknowledged tension in case law regarding whether evidentiary hearings on fee reasonableness are always required (footnote 1), without fully resolving it
• No appellee's brief was filed; the court decided the case on the merits under First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128 (1976) principles (implied)
• The court's discussion of the birth of another child not constituting a substantial change in circumstances is dicta, as the court found insufficient evidence rather than establishing a categorical rule