In re Custody of R.N.-E., 2020 IL App (1st) 190624-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Custody of R.N.-E., No. 1-19-0624, 2020 IL App (1st) 190624-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Div. Dec. 31, 2020) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Samuel E.; Respondent-Appellant: Thuy N.; minor: R.N.-E.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s allocation of parental responsibilities complied with the child’s “best interests” requirement (750 ILCS 5/602.7(b)).
- Whether the trial court condoned alleged misconduct/malfeasance by the guardian ad litem and acted as an advocate for petitioner.
- Whether the trial court’s denial of respondent’s petition for interim attorney’s fees was appealable.

3. Holding / outcome
- The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s allocation of parental responsibilities.
- The appeal as to the March 1, 2019 order denying interim attorney’s fees was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction: The allocation order was appealable as an interlocutory order under Rule 304(b)(6); however, the denial of interim fees was not appealable because interim fee awards under the Act are temporary and subject to adjustment at final adjudication (750 ILCS 5/501(c‑1)(2)). The trial court had reserved financial issues (including child support), so the fee order was premature.
- Record deficiencies: The trial court’s March 1 allocation did not include contemporaneous findings of fact; the court later issued findings on June 19, 2019, but the appellant did not supplement the appellate record with those findings or provide a complete trial transcript or bystander’s report. Under Foutch, the appellant bears the burden to present a complete record; absent it, the reviewing court must presume the trial court’s ruling conformed to law. Because of the incomplete record, the appellate court could not meaningfully review best‑interests determinations, alleged GAL misconduct, or claimed judicial advocacy.
- Standard of review: The opinion notes custody allocations are reviewed deferentially (manifest weight/abuse of discretion), but the court did not decide the precise standard because the record was inadequate.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Preserve and assemble a complete appellate record: certified transcripts, bystander’s reports, and any post‑judgment findings of fact; move promptly to supplement if findings are issued after notice of appeal.
- When seeking (or opposing) interim fees, remember such orders are typically provisional and may be unreviewable until final disposition—structure litigation strategy accordingly.
- If alleging GAL or judicial misconduct, ensure those claims are developed on the record (objections, motion practice, rulings) to create a reviewable record.
- Note Rule 23 status: the decision is non‑precedential and cited only in limited circumstances.