In re Guardianship of M.E., 2024 IL App (3d) 230423-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Guardianship of M.E., 2024 IL App (3d) 230423‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. July 19, 2024) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioners/Appellees: Susan M. Borowski & Wayne K. Borowski (plenary guardians/grandparents).
- Respondent/Appellant: Jeremy Evans (biological father, pro se).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Evans’s motion for unsupervised parenting time where he failed to appear timely at the hearing.
- Whether the court’s order requiring Evans to obtain prior leave — by appearing in person in court — before filing further motions for unsupervised parenting time violated due process or other constitutional rights.

3. Holding/outcome
- The Appellate Court affirmed. The denial of Evans’s motion for unsupervised parenting time and the procedural leave requirement (in‑person appearance before filing further such motions) were not an abuse of discretion and did not violate constitutional rights.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard: abuse of discretion review. The court found no arbitrary or legally erroneous action by the trial judge.
- Denial of the motion: Evans was not present when the hearing proceeded; the court heard argument and set forth several factual bases for denial — 15 prior denied motions, no new facts in the later motion, criminal history, lack of contact with the child between supervised visits, inconsistent compliance with supervised visits, and disruptive/disrespectful courtroom behavior. Absent Evans’s presence to contest or rebut, the court’s decision fell within its discretion.
- Filing restriction: the order did not bar all filings but required a specific procedure (seek leave and appear in person) for additional motions seeking unsupervised parenting time. The appellate court emphasized trial courts’ inherent authority to manage dockets and prevent abuse (citing Link/Dietz and Sander principles and Palos Community Hosp. authority). Given Evans’s repetitive filings and the lack of new factual bases, the tailored restriction was justified and not so onerous as to deny access to the courts.
- Procedural note: the August 24 denial of Evans’s motion for leave (for failing to appear in person) was not before the court on this appeal.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Trial courts may impose narrow, procedural filing restrictions against repetitive pro se litigants to prevent abuse, provided restrictions are tailored and leave avenues for relief.
- Make clear factual findings on the record when denying visitation and when imposing filing limitations (prior filings, lack of new facts, safety/guardian recommendations, litigant conduct).
- Pro se litigants should appear timely and comply strictly with leave conditions; appellate review is limited if later orders are not included in the notice of appeal.
- Although nonprecedential (Rule 23), the decision reinforces courts’ docket‑control authority and the importance of contemporaneous recordation of findings supporting restrictions.