In re Grandparent Visitation of J.M.N., 2019 IL App (1st) 181632‑U

1. Citation & Parties

- In re the Grandparent Visitation of J.M.N., No. 1‑18‑1632 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Fourth Div., June 6, 2019).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Kathleen B. (maternal grandmother).
- Respondent‑Appellant: Herbert N. (adoptive father).
- Note: Order filed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23 (non‑precedential).

2. Key Legal Issues

- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying father’s postjudgment motion to reconsider an agreed grandparent‑visitation order.
- Whether an evidentiary hearing was required to resolve the father’s objections to terms of the visitation order that were entered after a pretrial conference.

3. Holding / Outcome

- The appellate court affirmed. Denial of the section 2‑1203 motion to reconsider was not an abuse of discretion because the father had agreed to the order (including by signing it and accepting the court’s proposed terms during the hearing), and no evidentiary hearing was necessary to resolve the issues raised.

4. Significant Legal Reasoning

- Motion to reconsider standard: Section 2‑1203 allows modification or vacation of a judgment within 30 days for newly discovered evidence, change in law, or error; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
- The record showed extensive pretrial negotiation and that most terms were negotiated in advance; a draft order circulated and both parties signed the last page. Although the father later expressed objections (primarily to the exchange location and travel expense), the transcript reflected his acquiescence at the April hearing — he accepted “North Avenue” as the exchange point after the judge pressed for resolution. The trial judge also gave an ultimatum to accept an agreed order that day or the court would impose a location.
- Given the procedural history, the court reasonably concluded the order was agreed to and entry without an evidentiary hearing was appropriate; there were no newly presented facts or legal changes warranting reconsideration.

5. Practice Implications

- Make agreements crystal‑clear on the record: signatory signatures plus on‑the‑record assent reduce later challenges.
- Preserve objections: if a party believes the judge is imposing rather than adopting an agreement, explicitly state the desire for a continuance or for an evidentiary hearing and file timely, specific postjudgment motions identifying new evidence or legal error.
- Draft and circulate proposed orders carefully; correct clerical errors immediately.
- Be aware that pro se litigants who indicate assent in open court may be held to agreements; courts may treat ultimatums (agree now or I will decide) as closing the case that day.
- Remember Rule 23 status when citing this decision.