In re Marriage of Anderson, 2021 IL App (3d) 200191-U

In re Marriage of Anderson, 2021 IL App (3d) 200191‑U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Anderson, 2021 IL App (3d) 200191‑U (Aug. 13, 2021) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Michelle T. Anderson (n/k/a Michelle T. Mustain). Respondent‑Appellee: Bryan C. Anderson.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in modifying parental decision‑making (healthcare, extracurriculars) to joint control.
- Whether the court abused its discretion in denying an in‑camera interview of the children under 750 ILCS 5/604.10.
- Whether the trial court improperly failed to give children’s wishes controlling weight or to impose restrictions on respondent’s parenting time (including under 750 ILCS 5/603.10).
- Whether child support should have been recalculated or otherwise modified after the change in overnights.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court’s allocation of joint decision‑making (healthcare and extracurricular activities), its expansion of respondent’s parenting time, its denial of an in‑camera interview, and its refusal to impose parenting‑time restrictions were not erroneous. The court directed that respondent’s child support be recalculated based on the modified overnight schedule; Michelle failed to show an improper change in child support.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standards: modification of parental responsibilities requires a substantial change in circumstances and determination of the child’s best interests (reviewed for manifest weight); in‑camera interviews are discretionary. The trial court found a substantial change (including mother’s relocation) and applied the best‑interest factors in 750 ILCS 5/602.5 and 602.7.
- The GAL had interviewed each child three times and submitted recommendations; the court reasonably declined an in‑camera interview, concluding additional interviews would further stress the children and add little value. The court noted that although the parties were hostile, Michelle had repeatedly made unilateral healthcare decisions (and “catastrophized”), negatively affecting the children and justifying joint decision‑making.
- The opinion emphasized deference to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments, and noted many appellant arguments were forfeited for lack of developed briefing. Bryan did not file an appellee brief, but the appellate court reached the merits.

5. Practice implications
- Preserve and develop arguments fully on appeal; unsupported issues risk forfeiture. Provide clear evidence of a “substantial change” and of harm to justify restrictions under §603.10.
- When a GAL has thoroughly interviewed children and reported, courts may decline in‑camera interviews as a matter of discretion; anticipate the GAL’s report and use it proactively.
- Relocation affecting travel/overnights can constitute a substantial change and justify modification of parenting time and child‑support recalculation based on overnights.
- Trial court factual findings and credibility determinations receive substantial deference; appellate reversal is difficult absent clear contrary proof.