In re Marriage of Carty, 2023 IL App (2d) 220350‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Currens Carty v. Robert Carty; People of the State of Illinois v. Robert Carty. No. 2‑22‑0350 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist., order filed June 7, 2023). Rule 23(b) order (non‑precedential).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a BACtrack data compilation (date/time stamped breathalyzer results and “missed” entries) was properly admitted under the business‑records exception and self‑authentication (Ill. R. Evid. 803(6), 902(11)).
- Whether evidence supported a finding of indirect criminal contempt for violations of a dissolution judgment that required twice‑daily breath tests (and sobriety while the children were present).

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not err in admitting the BACtrack report. The court affirmed the finding of indirect criminal contempt for missed breath tests and the sentence (2 days jail and $400 fine). The trial court had properly dismissed the contempt claim based on positive BAC results because there was no evidence the children were present when positives occurred.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Admissibility: The trial court found the BACtrack compilation admissible as a business record and properly self‑authenticated by a custodian’s written certification under Rule 902(11). The court deemed defendant’s objections (accuracy/authenticity, lack of notice) to concern the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. The appellant’s request for more time to prepare was denied and was not preserved.
- Missing‑entry issues: The court relied on the data compilation showing “scheduled test was missed” entries and concluded the parenting plan required testing (regardless of child presence), so missed tests violated the order.
- Positive‑BAC issues: For the sobriety requirement (no presence of children while BAC > 0.00), the court required proof that the positive tests coincided with parenting time; because no evidence showed the children were present during the positive readings, the court granted a directed finding as to that theory.
- Forfeiture: The opinion emphasizes that late challenges to foundation/notice may be forfeited if a party fails to seek a continuance or preserve specific foundational objections.

5) Practice implications for family attorneys
- When drafting parenting orders that rely on device data, specify (a) the device/account to be used, (b) access procedures, (c) frequency/timestamps required, and (d) an evidentiary provision addressing admissibility/authentication of device logs.
- Preserve challenges by timely, specific motions (motion to continue if business records are produced on the morning of trial) and request custodian testimony where foundation for nonexistence (missed entries) or device reliability may be contested.
- To prove contempt for intoxication while with children, establish contemporaneous proof the parent had custody/presence at the time of the positive test.
- Use custodial certifications under Rule 902(11) where possible, but anticipate adversary attacks on accuracy that go to weight — cross‑examine and, if needed, call technical witnesses about device operation, certification, and account behavior.