In Re Marriage of A'hearn, 947 N.E.2d 333

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of A'hearn, 947 N.E.2d 333 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). Petitioner-Appellee: Rosemarie A'hearn; Respondent-Appellant: Michael A'hearn.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by barring all of the father's witnesses (and then dismissing his custody petition with prejudice) as a discovery sanction for late Rule 213 disclosures.
2. Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal given other post‑dissolution motions pending in the trial court.
3. Whether a section 604(b) evaluator must be disclosed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court reversed and remanded. It concluded the trial court’s exclusionary sanction and dismissal of the custody petition constituted an abuse of discretion. The opinion also addressed appealability and the status of post‑dissolution filings.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court first examined appealability given pending post‑dissolution matters, surveying the split in authority (Purdy, Carr, Duggan, Gutman, Kozloff) and explaining that post‑dissolution custody motions can be treated as separately appealable in appropriate circumstances; thus jurisdiction existed to review the sanctions order. On the merits, the appellate court emphasized that discovery sanctions under Rule 213 and court orders must be proportionate and that barring all witnesses is an extreme measure justified only where prejudice and willful/non‑excusable conduct are clearly shown. The trial court had found prejudice but did not establish that lesser sanctions were inadequate or that the late disclosures reflected the type of culpable conduct warranting exclusion of all testimony. The father’s counsel explained the late production (assistant’s failure to mail disclosures) and the disclosures were provided shortly before trial; the appellate court found the record did not support the draconian sanction of dismissal. The opinion also scrutinized the trial court’s treatment of section 604(b) evaluators in relation to Rule 213 disclosure requirements, noting that evaluators occupy a distinct role and that the Rule‑213 analysis cannot be applied mechanistically without regard to statutory evaluator procedures.

- Practice implications for attorneys
- Strictly comply with Rule 213 and discovery/court deadlines; courts will impose sanctions for violations, and late disclosure can be fatal if unexplained.
- When sanctions are imposed, advocate for and preserve the record of lesser remedies tried or considered; courts must consider proportionality.
- Raise jurisdiction/appealability issues early and seek Rule 304(a) findings when necessary.
- Carefully distinguish 604(b) evaluators from ordinary witnesses when framing disclosures and objections; preserve arguments that evaluators are governed by statute and not subject to blanket Rule 213 treatment.