Ellis

In re Marriage of Rymma B.

- Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Rymma B., 2021 IL App (1st) 201400-U (1st Dist. June 16, 2021) (Order filed under Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 23). Petitioner-Appellant: Rymma B.; Respondent-Appellee: Samvel S. (Third Division; Justices Burke, McBride, Ellis). - Key legal issues 1. Whether the appellate court could provide relief from a circuit court’s temporary custody/education order that directed the parties’ child to attend in‑person school in Michigan for a limited semester during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2. Whether the appeal was justiciable or moot once the challenged temporary order expired. 3. Related procedural issues: guardian ad litem recommendations, alleged violation of allocation judgment, and whether a relocation issue was being litigated properly. - Holding/outcome The First District dismissed the appeal as moot because the temporary circuit-court order being appealed had expired and the appellate court could not grant effectual relief. No exception to the mootness doctrine applied. The Rule 23 order is non‑precedential except as permitted by that rule. - Significant legal reasoning The court’s sole dispositive analysis was mootness: the temporary order at issue covered a defined time frame (a school semester running to June 4, 2021). By the time appellate review proceeded, the term had ended and there was no live controversy—therefore appellate relief would be purely advisory and unavailable. The panel considered, but rejected, application of mootness exceptions (e.g., capable‑of‑repetition‑yet‑evading‑review/public‑importance), concluding they did not justify retention of the matter. The opinion relies on basic mootness principles—an appellant must demonstrate a live, redressable controversy to obtain appellate relief. - Practice implications (concise) - Time‑limited orders (school terms, emergency temporary custody) can become moot quickly; counsel must act promptly to secure appellate review (seek emergency/expedited briefing and oral argument or temporary injunctive relief). - When seeking or opposing temporary relocation/schooling orders, preserve the record on best‑interest factors and on reasons why the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review if you anticipate an appeal. - If a party contends a relocation is occurring, follow relocation petition procedures; temporary schooling orders should be clearly characterized to avoid conversion to de facto relocation. - Guardian ad litem reports can be outcome‑determinative in temporary emergency proceedings—develop or challenge factual findings thoroughly at the trial level. - Remember Rule 23 orders are non‑precedential; citeable with caution. (Approx. 360 words)