In re Marriage of Andrea T., 2025 IL App (3d) 250102-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Andrea T., 2025 IL App (3d) 250102-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., July 25, 2025).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Andrea T.; Respondent-Appellant: Jon T. (appeal from Du Page County).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in restricting father’s parenting time.
- Whether the trial court’s award of sole decision‑making authority over the children’s religious instruction to the mother was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allocating guardian ad litem (GAL) and custody‑evaluator fees.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting Jon’s parenting time.
- The appellate court found the trial court’s award of sole decision‑making authority over religious instruction to Andrea was against the manifest weight of the evidence and reversed that portion.
- The trial court’s allocation of GAL and custody‑evaluator fees was not an abuse of discretion and was affirmed.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: parenting‑time and fee allocations reviewed for abuse of discretion; allocation of decision‑making as to religion reviewed under manifest‑weight principles.
- Parenting time: substantial evidence supported restriction — GAL testimony documented repeated parental conflict, alleged coaching of children, father’s refusal to administer prescribed medication or cooperate with treatment, incidents involving risky items (e.g., lost shotgun report, pepper/“exploding cigarette” allegations), and serious emotional/behavioral needs of the children (impulsivity, self‑harm ideation). The GAL recommended a limited suspension (90 days) to address alienation and permit therapeutic stabilization; the appellate court concluded the trial court acted within its discretion to protect the children’s best interests.
- Religious decision‑making: the dissolution/parenting agreement language and the record did not support awarding sole authority to the mother. The GAL’s testimony was equivocal, and evidence showed alternative accommodations (scheduling religious instruction during father’s time or remote options). Because the record lacked the necessary support for exclusive maternal control, that determination was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the agreement and evidentiary record.
- Fees: the trial court’s apportionment of GAL and evaluation costs was supported and not an abuse of discretion.

5) Practice implications
- Draft clear, specific parenting‑time and decision‑making provisions (especially on religion and scheduling) to avoid post‑judgment ambiguity.
- When seeking restriction of parenting time, develop a strong evidentiary record tying parental conduct to concrete harm (medical noncompliance, therapy noncooperation, dangerous conduct, coaching).
- GAL recommendations carry weight but must be supported by concrete, non‑speculative evidence if they effect exclusive decision‑making.
- Keep detailed records to justify fee allocations; appellate courts give deference to trial court discretion on fees.