In re Marriage of Andrea M.R., 2025 IL App (5th) 231280-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Andrea M.R., No. 5-23-1280, 2025 IL App (5th) 231280-U (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 10, 2025) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Andrea M.R. (Mother). Respondent-Appellant: David R.S. (Father).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s modification of parental decision-making responsibilities and parenting time (and attendant child-support adjustment) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the evidence supported restricting Father’s parenting time and allocating greater decision-making authority to Mother based on health, safety, and co-parenting concerns.
- Appellate standard of review for parenting modifications (manifest weight; deference to credibility findings).

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The Fifth District held the trial court’s modification of parenting time and parental responsibilities (and consistent child-support order) was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The appellate court emphasized deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings in a lengthy factual context. The record contained extensive evidence of ongoing disputes: unilateral decisions by Father (returning children to in‑person school against Mother’s objections tied to medical concerns), alleged failures to follow medical treatment recommendations (e.g., medication, a prescribed device), repeated direct contact outside an ordered communication platform, contested school pick‑ups, police involvement, and an emergency order of protection that temporarily curtailed Father’s parenting time.
- The trial court had previously ordered adherence to medical providers’ recommendations, mandated mediation, restricted exchanges to a police‑department lot, and issued temporary health decision‑making to Mother in part. At the final three‑day hearing, the evidence supported changes to parenting time and allocation of responsibilities; the appellate court found that the trial court did not err in weighing the testimony and documentary evidence and applying the best‑interest standard. Manifest‑weight review requires that the appellate court will overturn only when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident — which was not the case.

5) Practice implications (what attorneys should do)
- For movants: build a detailed factual record (medical records, physician testimony, school reports, police logs, communications via court‑authorized platforms) showing a substantial change affecting the child’s welfare and the best‑interest rationale for modification.
- For respondents: comply strictly with court‑ordered communication and exchange protocols, document compliance with medical orders, timely reimbursements, and extracurricular decisions to avoid credibility harms.
- Procedural: obtain and preserve transcripts for all emergency and temporary hearings; appellate review hinges on the trial record and credibility findings.
- Tactical: use clear, contemporaneous documentary evidence (emails, OFW entries, medical releases) when litigating parenting modifications tied to health/safety.