Knecht

In re Marriage of Hubbard

- Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Hubbard, 2019 IL App (4th) 190026‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. June 6, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellant: Ruth Elizabeth Hubbard. Respondent‑Appellee: Mark Anthony Hubbard. - Key legal issues 1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the respondent’s 10‑year‑old stepson (A.S.) to be present during respondent father’s parenting time despite a finding that respondent had seriously endangered the children’s mental/physical health under 750 ILCS 5/603.10(a). 2) Whether an appeal lies from a trial court’s finding of indirect civil contempt where sanctions had not yet been imposed. - Holding/outcome The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order that continued parenting time but prohibited unsupervised contact between the children and A.S., and allowed supervised/protected visitation rather than terminating contact. The court dismissed the portion of the appeal attacking the contempt finding for lack of jurisdiction because the contempt order was not final and appealable (no sanctions imposed). Justice Knecht dissented from the judgment. - Significant legal reasoning (concise) The court emphasized trial court discretion in fashioning remedies to protect children while preserving parental contact when possible. On the evidence (therapist testimony, child statements, and credibility determinations), the trial court permissibly found that A.S. inappropriately touched the daughters and that respondent had not adequately protected them. Nevertheless, the court concluded the record supported a less extreme remedy than terminating respondent’s parenting time: continuation of visitation subject to protective conditions (no unsupervised contact with A.S., supervised parenting time, parenting education/therapist involvement). The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility assessments and view that remedial measures could both protect the children and preserve familial relationships. As to contempt, the court reiterated that an order finding indirect civil contempt is not appealable until sanctions are imposed (i.e., the order must be final and appealable). - Practice implications for family law attorneys - When seeking restrictions under §603.10, expect courts to balance protection with preservation of parent‑child contact; propose concrete protective measures (supervision plans, no‑contact provisions, therapeutic monitoring) rather than outright termination. - Build the record on credibility and contemporaneous reporting (therapist testimony, child disclosures) to support findings of endangerment. - If a client is found in contempt, be aware an appeal is premature until sanctions are entered—either obtain/contest sanctions at the trial level or wait for a final order. - Counsel clients about the risks of unilaterally withholding court‑ordered parenting time (exposure to contempt) and document protective steps taken to avoid appearing obstructive.