In re Parentage of A.L.G
Case Analysis
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
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 )
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 )
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 )
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 )
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
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
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 )
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 )
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 )
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 )
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
Disclaimer: This case summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. Always consult with a licensed attorney for specific legal questions.
Questions About Modification or Enforcement?
Start with a conflict-check intake. If cleared, our office can discuss the existing order and requested relief.
Start Conflict-Check IntakeLegal Assistant
Ask specific questions about this case's holding.
Disclaimer: This AI analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Always verify any AI-generated content against the official court opinion.