In re Marriage of Calcagno, 2025 IL App (3d) 250299

Facts

Michael and Dawn Calcagno were divorcing with children involved. The trial court granted Michael temporary exclusive possession of the marital residence based on a section 604.10(b) evaluator's report recommending separation of mother and children. Dawn appealed the exclusive possession order.

Issue

Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from exclusive possession orders and whether the trial court erred in admitting an evaluator's report without live testimony.

Holding

The appellate court has jurisdiction under Rule 307(a)(1) because exclusive possession orders retain injunctive character despite statutory changes. The trial court properly admitted the evaluator's report through GAL testimony and local practice, and the exclusive possession award was supported by evidence of prolonged estrangement and failed therapeutic interventions.

Key Reasoning

• Rule 307(a)(1) permits interlocutory appeals from exclusive possession orders because they deprive a spouse of possession and alter the status quo, retaining injunctive character
• Section 604.10(b) evaluator reports may be admitted without live testimony when introduced through GAL testimony and established local court practice
• Exclusive possession requires showing cohabitation jeopardizes physical or mental well-being, supported by credibility determinations and balancing of hardships
• Manifest weight standard applied to trial court's factual findings regarding children's mental well-being and therapeutic failures