In re Marriage of Bush, 2019 IL App (1st) 191467-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Bush, No. 1-19-1467, 2019 IL App (1st) 191467-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Dec. 13, 2019) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Erika Bush. Respondent-Appellant: Edwin F. Bush.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly bifurated the dissolution judgment (separating marital dissolution from child-related determinations).
- Whether the trial court’s emergency and plenary orders (temporary order of protection, suspension of parenting time pending anger-management/counseling) were proper.
- Appellate jurisdiction/timeliness under Ill. S. Ct. Rule 307(d)(1).
- Evidentiary/record issues (failure to properly place video/audio or uncertified transcript in the appellate record).

3. Holding / outcome
- The appellate court concluded the circuit court erred in bifurcating the dissolution judgment. It dismissed part of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, affirmed certain trial-court rulings, vacated others, and remanded with instructions. (Order summary: “We dismiss the appeal in part, affirm the judgment in part, vacate in part, and remand with instructions.”)

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Jurisdiction: Edwin’s immediate appeal from the 21‑day emergency order of protection was dismissed where his petition for leave to appeal was filed outside Rule 307(d)’s two‑day period, depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction on that discrete challenge.
- Record/evidence: The appellant attempted to rely on a self‑prepared transcription of police body‑camera video that was not properly authenticated or filed per Illinois Supreme Court standards for electronic exhibits; the court refused to consider it. The opinion reiterates the appellant’s burden to supply a complete, properly authenticated record (citing Foutch principles).
- Merits: Although the trial court found the “choking” allegation insufficient to grant a plenary order of protection, it nonetheless concluded parenting time posed a risk to the children’s emotional/physical well‑being based on the incident plus Edwin’s demonstrated temperament and conduct toward a DCFS investigator, and ordered suspension of parenting time pending completion of court‑directed anger management. The appellate court nevertheless identified error in the trial court’s bifurcation of the dissolution judgment and remanded for appropriate proceedings.

5. Practice implications for family-law practitioners
- Timeliness and Rule 307: challenges to emergency protective orders require strict compliance with Rule 307(d). Missing the two‑day window can be fatal to appellate jurisdiction.
- Preserve and authenticate multimedia evidence: submit video/audio per the Supreme Court’s electronic filing standards; uncertified transcripts prepared by a party are inadequate.
- Beware of bifurcation: appellate courts will scrutinize attempts to separate marital dissolution from child‑welfare/parenting determinations; seek to resolve interrelated monetary/parenting issues together or preserve arguments against improper bifurcation.
- Develop a record on demeanor/temperament rulings: where parenting time is restricted based on temperament or conduct (even absent a plenary order), litigants should ensure thorough testimony, documentary evidence, and preserved rulings for appeal.