In re Former Marriage of Girard, 2023 IL App (1st) 231361-U

- Case citation and parties
In re the Former Marriage of Girard, 2023 IL App (1st) 231361‑U (consolidated with 1‑23‑1372). Petitioner/Appellant: Kenton Girard; Respondent/Appellee: Jane Girard; Third‑party Respondent/Appellant: Marissa Girard.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court’s order directing parents to delete their minor children’s social‑media posts about pending custody litigation and to instruct them not to post or speak with media constituted an “injunction” appealable interlocutory order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1).
2) Related procedural issues: adequacy of appellate briefing (Rule 341) and asserted First and Fourteenth Amendment free‑speech challenges (raised but not reached).

- Holding / outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court held the challenged trial court order was not an injunction for purposes of Rule 307(a)(1), so the order was not an appealable interlocutory order.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court first noted its independent duty to consider appellate jurisdiction. Although the trial court labeled the underlying pleading an “Emergency Petition for Temporary Restraining Order,” the appellate court looked to the substance of the July 25, 2023 order and concluded it was a custody‑context remedial directive (requiring parents to oversee deletion of posts and to instruct the minor children not to post or speak to media) rather than a stand‑alone injunction creating an appealable interlocutory right under Rule 307(a)(1). Because the order was not an injunction within the meaning of Rule 307(a)(1), the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to resolve the appellants’ constitutional and statutory claims and therefore dismissed the appeals. The court also criticized the appellants’ pro se briefs for multiple Rule 341 deficiencies but declined to dismiss solely on that ground.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Jurisdictional drafting: if immediate appellate review is desired, counsel should ensure injunctive relief is pleaded and the trial court expressly enters findings and labels the ruling in a manner consistent with Rule 307 requirements (and preserves a clear record showing injunctive character).
- Preserve and develop the record: obtain full transcripts of hearings and ensure orders set forth material findings and basis for relief if interlocutory review is anticipated.
- Rule compliance: appellate counsel must comply with Rule 341; pro se appellants face strict enforcement.
- Strategy on speech restraints: when seeking social‑media restrictions in custody cases, consider alternative routes (e.g., emergency motions, contempt, or structuring relief as part of final custody orders) because remedial parenting‑type directives may not be immediately appealable and constitutional arguments may be unreviewable until a final order.