In re Marriage of Baldridge, 2021 IL App (2d) 190920-U

In re Marriage of Baldridge, 2021 IL App (2d) 190920‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kenneth R. Baldridge (Petitioner‑Appellee) and Greta J. Baldridge (Respondent‑Appellant), No. 2‑19‑0920 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Apr. 9, 2021). Order filed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23(b) (non‑precedential).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly found Greta in contempt for violating parenting‑time orders and imposed sanctions (including fines, bond requirement, license suspension, and attorney’s fees).
- Whether evidence supported findings of parenting‑time interference/parenting‑time abuse.
- Whether the contempt finding was procedurally proper (i.e., contained a purge provision).
- Whether the matter should be reassigned to a different trial judge on remand.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed most of the trial court’s rulings as not against the manifest weight of the evidence, but vacated the contempt finding and related sanctions to the extent they constituted civil contempt because the order lacked a purge provision. The case was remanded for further proceedings; appellant failed to show cause for reassignment to a different judge.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Evidence: The court accepted that the record supported a finding (by preponderance) that Greta had not complied with allocated parenting time and that her conduct (alleged failure to discipline or to reassure the child, alleged coaching) tacitly encouraged the child’s refusal to engage with the father, thereby interfering with visitation. The underlying factual findings regarding the child’s fear and the parties’ conduct were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Contempt procedure: For civil contempt remedies (coercive sanctions intended to secure compliance), due process requires that the contemnor be afforded the ability to purge the contempt — i.e., an express, attainable means to avoid or remove the sanction by complying with the court order. The trial court imposed fines, bond, license suspension, and fee awards without identifying a purge mechanism; therefore the contempt determination and those sanctions had to be vacated.
- Reassignment: Appellant did not meet the heavy burden to show disqualifying bias or other grounds requiring remand to a different judge.

5) Practice implications (for family law practitioners)
- When seeking civil contempt or presenting opposition, ensure any requested or imposed coercive sanction is tied to a clear, specific court order and includes an explicit purge provision that identifies how the contemnor can avoid or purge sanctions by compliance.
- Plead and prove discrete breaches of parenting‑time orders (dates, conduct, witnesses) — courts may infer interference from circumstantial evidence, but specificity strengthens enforcement motions.
- If sanctions are sought, tie each sanction to both the statutory authority and a concrete remedial/purging mechanism; absent that, appellate courts may vacate contempt sanctions even when factual violations are sustained.
- Remember this is a Rule 23 (nonprecedential) decision; persuasive but not binding precedent.