Tailor
Key Insights
Affirmance Rate
20%
Reversal Rate
80%
Case History
10 Cases
Case Outcomes
Recent Decisions
In re Marriage of Hipes
- Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Hipes, 2023 IL App (1st) 230953. Petitioner-Appellee: Caroline Hipes. Respondent-Appellant: Diego Lozano. - Key legal issues 1. Whether the trial court applied the statutory “best interests of the child” standard (750 ILCS 5/602.7) when imposing alcohol-related restrictions on parenting time. 2. Whether the trial court’s finding of serious endangerment (based on substance abuse and related conduct) was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 3. Whether the specific restrictions ordered (breath-alcohol testing and certified drug/alcohol counseling) were necessary and appropriately tailored. - Holding / outcome The appellate court affirmed. The trial court’s imposition of mandatory breath-alcohol testing (via remote-testing systems) and ordered certified drug and alcohol counseling for Lozano was upheld. - Significant legal reasoning (concise) - Standard of review: credibility and factual findings are reviewed for manifest weight; trial court has broad discretion over allocation of parental responsibilities and reasonable restrictions to protect the child. - Evidence supporting restrictions: multiple DUIs (including positive ignition-interlock results), repeated relapses, an incident of domestic battery (guilty plea and order of protection), threats to self-harm while intoxicated, repeated missed/late/positive breath tests under court orders, and documented negative impact on the child (anxiety, withdrawal). The child’s condition improved after court-ordered breath testing began. - On manifest-weight review, the appellate court found ample evidence to support the trial court’s findings that Lozano’s alcohol use presented a risk to the child and that restrictions were in the child’s best interests. The court credited the trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility and the probative value of the testing record and family history. - Tailoring and intrusiveness: the restrictions (ongoing breath testing and counseling) were not deemed punitive but reasonably designed to mitigate the risk and ensure safe parenting time. The trial court acted within its discretion to require reliable monitoring and consequences for missed/failed tests. - Practice implications for family attorneys (brief) - Records and specificity matter: DUI convictions, ignition-interlock logs, treatment records, police reports, order-of-protection filings, contemporaneous text/emails, and evidence of a child’s emotional harm strongly support restrictions. - Request specific, enforceable monitoring mechanisms (e.g., Soberlink or real-time transmission systems) and spell out consequences for missed/failed tests in the order. Demonstrate reliability/chain-of-custody for chosen devices. - If defending a parent, challenge the sufficiency and reliability of monitoring methods, raise tailoring/narrowness concerns, and preserve objections to the statutory best-interest analysis on the record. - Trial-court credibility determinations are hard to overturn—focus on building an evidentiary record that either supports or rebuts the asserted risk.
In re Marriage of Parmar
- Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Parmar, No. 1-21-1339, 2023 IL App (1st) 211339-U (Ill. App. Ct. May 26, 2023) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner/Counter-Respondent-Appellant: Paminder S. Parmar. Respondent/Counter-Petitioner-Appellee: Karishma K. Rai. (Judgment affirmed by a 2–1 panel; Justice Tailor dissented.) - Key legal issues 1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to vacate a default dissolution judgment under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1301(e). 2) Whether the default should be set aside for lack of notice or loss of jurisdiction due to the parties’ residence in California. - Holding / Outcome The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Parmar’s 2‑1301(e) motion. The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that substantial justice had been done between the parties. - Significant legal reasoning (concise) - Standard: Relief under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1301(e) is discretionary; courts evaluate whether “substantial justice” would be achieved by vacating the default. Movant need not prove a meritorious defense, but courts weigh diligence, existence of a meritorious defense, severity of the penalty, and relative hardship. - Facts: Parmar’s counsel withdrew Nov. 2020; Parmar failed to file a pro se or substitute appearance within the 21‑day period and did not participate for ~6 months. A default order was entered May 18, 2021 and a prove‑up/default dissolution judgment entered June 1, 2021. Parmar moved to vacate June 30, 2021 claiming he believed the parties were reconciling while living in California and that he lacked notice and the court lacked jurisdiction. - Court’s view: Extensive prior litigation, Parmar’s initiation of the case, emails showing awareness, and the lengthy unexplained delay counseled against relief. The trial court found Parmar had ample notice and opportunity to protect his rights; under the totality of circumstances substantial justice favored denying relief. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion. - Practice implications for family practitioners - When counsel withdraws, clients must file a pro se or substitute appearance promptly (Supreme Court rule/21‑day practice); failure risks default and significant orders (custody, large asset allocations, attorney‑fee awards). - Living in another state or informal “reconciliation” is a weak excuse absent timely, documented steps to protect legal rights. Preserve evidence of actual lack of notice if claiming it. - Move to vacate promptly and develop a record on diligence, notice, jurisdiction, and any meritorious defenses; but be prepared that courts prioritize stability in child matters and timely resolution. - Email communications can be used by courts as proof of awareness/notice.
Other 1st District Judges
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Tailor's overall affirm rate on family law appeals?
Tailor has an overall affirm rate of 20% across 10 family law cases reviewed.
Which Illinois appellate district does Tailor serve in?
Tailor serves in the Illinois 1st District Appellate Court.
How often are Tailor's decisions reversed on appeal?
Tailor has a 80% reversal rate, with 8 decisions reversed out of 10 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