In re Marriage of Akin-Olugbemi, 2024 IL App (3d) 220523-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Akin-Olugbemi, 2024 IL App (3d) 220523-U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. Jan. 26, 2024) (Rule 23 order — not precedent).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Morounkeji Akin-Olugbemi (mother). Respondent-Appellant: Tolulope Akin-Olugbemi (father, self‑represented).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court adequately informed a pro se party that participation in an on‑the‑record pretrial conference would waive his right to a full trial and result in a binding adjudication on parenting time and child support (due process/fundamental fairness).
- (Raised but not reached) Whether the November 22 orders were against the manifest weight of the evidence and whether certain business expenses should have reduced the mother’s income for support purposes.

3. Holding / outcome
- Reversed and remanded. The appellate court held the trial court failed to adequately notify the unrepresented father that participation in the pretrial conference would waive his right to a trial and produce a binding order; therefore the parenting‑time reallocation and child‑support order (including a retroactive arrearage of $4,557) were vacated. Because of this procedural defect, the court did not reach the merits of the other issues.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The issue implicates due process and is reviewed de novo. The court examined the trial judge’s on‑the‑record explanation of the pretrial conference and found the language ambiguous and misleading for a layperson: the judge described the conference as a place “where we talk,” said she would “try to make a recommendation,” and that parties were “free to say no… I want my day in court.” The judge also said she would tell the parties “what my thoughts are.” Those formulations suggested a nonbinding discussion rather than a waiver of trial rights. Because the trial court never expressly informed the pro se father that proceeding would bar him from trial and result in a binding judgment, the waiver was not knowing and voluntary.

5. Practice implications (for judges and practitioners)
- Courts: When conducting on‑the‑record pretrial conferences with unrepresented parties, explicitly state whether the proceeding will be binding and that participation constitutes a waiver of a trial and related procedural protections; obtain an explicit, on‑the‑record waiver. Ambiguous terms like “recommendation” or “my thoughts” are insufficient.
- Counsel: If opposing a self‑represented litigant, ensure the record reflects the litigant’s informed choice; if representing a pro se party, advise and secure an explicit waiver before proceeding.
- Litigants: Parties should be warned that agreements or judicial determinations at a pretrial conference may be final and enforceable, and given the opportunity to insist on a trial.