In re Marriage of O'Brien, 958 N.E.2d 647 (Ill. 2011)

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of John O’Brien (appellant) and Lisa O’Brien (appellee), 958 N.E.2d 647 (Ill. Aug. 4, 2011).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether denial of a substitution of judge for cause under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1001(a)(3) was erroneous where the judge had prior involvement in related proceedings and limited social contact with the wife.
- What standard governs section 2‑1001(a)(3) motions (actual prejudice/bias vs. an appearance‑of‑impropriety test).
- Ancillary issues: adequacy/timeliness of the affidavit/grounds for substitution and whether the appellate court had jurisdiction given the notice of appeal; challenge to the trial court’s award of maintenance.

3. Holding / outcome
- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court and trial court: the petition to substitute judge for cause was properly denied and the judgment (including the maintenance award) was affirmed.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Substitution in Illinois is statutory; courts must apply section 2‑1001’s text and structure. The Court upheld the trial judge’s application of an actual‑prejudice standard to a for‑cause substitution claim and found no reversible error in doing so.
- The record showed only minimal contacts (two brief exchanges of greetings in a fitness‑club parking lot and an alleged in‑court wave) and multiple rulings favorable to John; those facts did not demonstrate prejudice or bias sufficient to disqualify the judge. Delay in seeking substitution and omissions from the supporting affidavit further undermined John’s claim.
- The Court treated Caperton (U.S. Supreme Court) arguments as distinguishable and held due‑process concerns were not triggered by the facts here.
- Procedurally, the Court applied a liberal construction to the notice of appeal: denial of substitution was a step in the procedural progression to the final judgment specified, so the appellate court had jurisdiction.

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Move promptly: delay in filing a for‑cause substitution and failing to include all alleged incidents in the supporting affidavit weakens the motion.
- Plead and prove actual prejudice: section 2‑1001(a)(3) requires more than speculative or minimal social contact; provide concrete evidence of bias or prejudicial judicial conduct.
- Preserve and document: contemporaneous records of communications, in‑court incidents, and unfavorable rulings help establish a pattern.
- Notice of appeal: a liberal construction may extend appellate jurisdiction when the challenged order is a step toward the final judgment, but specificity is safer.
- Recusal/disclosure: judges should be sensitive to even minimal off‑bench contacts; attorneys should consider other statutory grounds (e.g., (a)(1)) where involvement is clearer.