Moore
Key Insights
Affirmance Rate
27%
Reversal Rate
73%
Case History
11 Cases
Case Outcomes
Recent Decisions
In re Marriage of Tiffany A.
# In re Marriage of Tiffany A., 2025 IL App (5th) 250409‑U 1) Case citation and parties - In re Marriage of Tiffany A., No. 5‑25‑0409 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist.), decision filed Oct. 14, 2025 (Rule 23 non‑precedential). - Petitioner‑Appellant: Tiffany A. / Respondent‑Appellee: David A. Presiding Justice McHaney; Justices Moore & Vaughan concurred. 2) Key legal issues - Whether the guardian ad litem’s (GAL) investigation/report was inadequate such that the trial court improperly relied on it. - Whether the trial court’s allocation of a majority of parenting time to the father was against the manifest weight of the evidence under the statutory “best interest of the child” factors (750 ILCS 5/602.5, 602.7). 3) Holding/outcome - Affirmed. The appellate court held the GAL’s report was adequate and thorough, and the trial court’s award of majority parenting time to David was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court’s joint decision‑making order for education, health, religion, and extracurricular activities was left intact (Tiffany did not appeal that ruling). 4) Significant legal reasoning - GAL adequacy: The GAL interviewed both parents, the children, and third parties (a friend and an ex‑girlfriend of David), analyzed the statutory best‑interest factors, and made specific parenting‑time recommendations. The appellate court found that process adequate. - Manifest‑weight review: The court applied the deferential standard and found the trial court’s factual findings supported by evidence: father’s involvement in parenting (including pre‑dissolution caregiving and extracurricular coaching), stability of residence in Mendon with family support, proximity to a local school, ongoing treatment for PTSD, limited recent alcohol use, and efforts to address mental‑health issues. Countervailing evidence included incidents recounted by Tiffany (allegations of controlling behavior, an order of protection, school attendance/behavior issues for the children, a DCFS investigation arising from allegations involving a third party), which the trial court weighed and found insufficient to award primary parenting time to Tiffany. The GAL’s analysis of factors in 602.5/602.7 was central to the court’s factfinding. 5) Practice implications - Challenges to a GAL report are uphill: appellate courts look for thoroughness (who was interviewed, what inquiries were made, and whether statutory factors were addressed). Preserve specific trial‑level objections and develop contrary evidence. - Build a full evidentiary record on statutory factors (parental fitness, stability, continuity of schooling, child behavior/therapy, third‑party allegations, substance/mental‑health treatment). - Temporary orders, unilateral moves, and documentation of parenting responsibility (attendance at school, medical care, extracurriculars) are critical. - GAL costs may be split; consider cost allocation motions. - Remember Rule 23 status: this opinion is non‑precedential except in limited circumstances.
In re Marriage of Moore
In re Marriage of Moore, 2024 IL App (4th) 230874‑U 1. Case citation and parties - In re Marriage of Moore, No. 4‑23‑0874 (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., Feb. 15, 2024) (Rule 23 order, not precedent). - Petitioner‑Appellant: Erin Moore. Respondent‑Appellee: Christopher Moore. 2. Key legal issues - Whether a court may enforce an alleged in‑court settlement (MSA, parenting plan, proposed judgment) where petitioner later disavows assent. - Whether the settlement’s maintenance, child support, and parenting‑time provisions were unconscionable. - Whether petitioner entered the agreement under duress or without sufficient financial disclosure. 3. Holding/outcome - Affirmed. The trial court did not err in entering judgment pursuant to the parties’ settlement. Petitioner failed to show the agreement was unconscionable or entered into under duress. 4. Significant legal reasoning - The appellate court credited the trial court’s factual findings that the parties reached an agreement on April 6, 2021. Although no transcript of the April 6 hearing existed (recording device not turned on), testimony from counsel and the parties supported that a settlement was announced. - The court applied familiar principles: settlement agreements are enforceable if entered knowingly and voluntarily. To avoid enforcement, a party must present clear proof of duress, coercion, or unconscionability (both procedural and substantive components). - Duress/coercion: petitioner’s testimony that she lacked understanding or was pressured (e.g., counsel’s alleged thumb‑up, later inability to work with original counsel) was insufficient to rebut the trial court’s finding of voluntary assent. Presence of counsel, participation in negotiations, and post‑settlement communications undermined the duress claim. - Unconscionability: the court observed that maintenance and child support figures fell within a range that could be explained by the parties’ competing calculations (salary vs. K‑1 distributions) and negotiated resolution (including a 21.7% allocation of K‑1 distributions). Petitioner did not show terms so one‑sided as to be unconscionable, nor did she establish material nondisclosure of assets preventing informed assent. 5. Practice implications (for family law practitioners) - Put settlements on the record: reduce all material terms to an on‑the‑record recitation or obtain signed MSA/parenting plan before leaving court. - Confirm client’s informed assent: ensure clients expressly acknowledge understanding the deal and sign documents; document disclosure of financials. - When dividing volatile income (K‑1s, bonuses), draft explicit calculation/later‑adjustment mechanisms (percentages, true‑up procedures). - If opposing enforcement, be prepared with concrete proof of coercion, lack of disclosure, or stark substantive unfairness—mere buyer’s remorse is unlikely to suffice. - Preserve the record: make sure courtroom recordings/transcripts are available; absence of a transcript places reliance on witness testimony and risks credibility findings adverse to your client.
In re Marriage of Moore
- Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Moore, 2021 IL App (5th) 190312‑U. Petitioner‑Appellee: Scott E. Moore. Respondent‑Appellant: Sherri A. Moore. - Key legal issues 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding contribution toward a nonminor child’s college expenses. 2. Whether the court properly considered and imputed income to a parent who is unemployed or underemployed by choice. 3. Whether evidence regarding transferability of Post‑9/11 GI Bill benefits was admissible and/or could be ordered by the court. - Holding/outcome The Fifth District affirmed the trial court’s February 4, 2019 order granting Scott’s petition for educational expenses for the parties’ adult daughter. The appellate court found no error in the trial court’s credibility findings, imputation of income to Sherri, or ultimate award. - Significant legal reasoning (concise) The appellate court applied the familiar abuse‑of‑discretion standard to the trial court’s decision regarding educational expenses and imputation of income. The trial court’s credibility determinations — that Scott’s evidence of expenses and income was credible and that Sherri was substantially underemployed by choice — were supported by the record (financial affidavits, pay records, testimony that Sherri had voluntary unemployment, pension income, and transferable GI Bill benefits she declined to transfer). The court found Sherri failed to present credible evidence justifying her unemployment or to demonstrate inability to contribute. The trial judge permissibly considered the existence and possible transfer of GI Bill benefits as factual evidence of Sherri’s ability to assist, but correctly recognized he lacked statutory authority to order the transfer of federal education benefits. Because the trial court’s findings were supported by evidence and within its discretion, the appellate court declined to disturb them. - Practice implications for family law attorneys - Voluntary underemployment: courts will impute income where a parent chooses unemployment or underemployment without credible justification; introduce contemporaneous proof of job searches, medical evidence, and realistic earning capacity if contesting imputation. - Document expenses: thorough, substantiated proof of the child’s reasonable college costs and of the paying parent’s payments strengthens a petition. - GI Bill/Federal benefits: while a court may consider whether federal benefits are available and could reduce a parent’s financial burden, courts likely cannot compel federal benefit transfers — address transferability strategically (client consent, administrative avenues). - Record and credibility: appellate review defers to trial court credibility findings; present clear, consistent financial affidavits and live testimony to preserve issues for appeal. - Rule 23 note: decision filed under Rule 23 (nonprecedential), but useful persuasive guidance on imputation and educational‑expense practice.
In re Custody of K.N.L.
# In re Custody of K.N.L., 2019 IL App (5th) 190082 1. Case citation and parties - In re Custody of K.N.L., 2019 IL App (5th) 190082 (5th Dist. July 2, 2019). - Petitioners/Appellants: Gary & Rebecca Ferrari (nonparents/foster caregivers). - Respondent/Appellee: Bethany Nicholle Moore (natural mother). - Judgment: Trial court dismissal affirmed. 2. Key legal issues - Do nonparents have statutory standing under 750 ILCS 5/601.2(b)(3) to file for allocation of parental responsibilities when a child is in their physical care but legal custody rests with DCFS? - Whether a parent’s stipulation/admission in a juvenile neglect proceeding and placement with foster caregivers constitutes a voluntary and indefinite relinquishment of “physical custody” for purposes of section 601.2(b)(3). (Alternative remedy: visitation under 750 ILCS 5/602.9.) 3. Holding/outcome - The appellate court affirmed dismissal: petitioners lacked standing under § 601.2(b)(3) because the mother had not voluntarily and indefinitely relinquished physical custody of the child. 4. Significant legal reasoning (summary) - Standing to seek allocation is statutory and nonparents bear the burden to prove it; the question is assessed as of the date relief is sought and reviewed de novo. - “Physical custody” in § 601.2(b)(3) requires voluntary and indefinite relinquishment, not mere possession. Courts consider (1) who handled care/welfare before proceedings, (2) how possession was acquired, and (3) nature/duration of possession. - Although petitioners performed day-to-day care for ~2.5 years (factor 1 favored them), factors 2–3 favored the mother: DCFS placed the child after temporary custody was awarded in a neglect proceeding; the permanency plan explicitly contemplated the child’s return if the mother complied; the mother’s stipulation and cooperation were found to be made in a coercive shelter-care/child-protection context and aimed at reunification, not an intent to permanently surrender custody. - The court emphasized that admissions to obtain services or to cooperate with DCFS do not automatically equal a voluntary, indefinite relinquishment of parental custody. 5. Practice implications (concise) - Nonparents in foster/kinship roles should not assume § 601.2 standing merely from prolonged physical care; establish clear evidence of the parent’s voluntary, indefinite relinquishment if seeking allocation. - When placement stems from DCFS action, consider filing under § 602.9 (statutory visitation for certain nonparents) or seek intervention in the juvenile case rather than a § 601.2 petition. - Expect evidentiary hearings on standing; collect documentary evidence showing parent intent, communications with DCFS, permanency plans, and whether placement was voluntary. - Defense counsel for parents should highlight the statutory safeguard of parental rights, the coercive context of shelter-care proceedings, and the parent’s expressed intent to reunify. - Timing and service nuances (petition filing vs. service coinciding with reunification) may be relevant — preserve arguments on timeliness/standing.
Other 5th District Judges
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Moore's overall affirm rate on family law appeals?
Moore has an overall affirm rate of 27% across 11 family law cases reviewed.
Which Illinois appellate district does Moore serve in?
Moore serves in the Illinois 5th District Appellate Court.
How often are Moore's decisions reversed on appeal?
Moore has a 73% reversal rate, with 8 decisions reversed out of 11 total cases.
Need Strategic Insights for Your Appeal?
Get deeper analytics, outcome forecasts, and compare judges side-by-side with a Professional subscription.
Upgrade to Professional