In re Marriage of Cholach, 2023 IL App (1st) 221776-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Cholach, No. 1-22-1776, 2023 IL App (1st) 221776-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. Nov. 16, 2023). Petitioner-Appellee: Yaryna Cholach. Respondent-Appellant: Nazar Cholach.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court’s allocation of all major decision-making responsibilities for the parties’ two minor children to the mother was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the marital residence to the mother (and whether that award was an appealable order).

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s allocation of parental decision-making to the mother as not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court dismissed the appellant’s challenge to the marital-home allocation for lack of jurisdiction because that order was not a final, separately appealable judgment under Rule 304(b)(6).

- Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction: The appellate court accepted review under Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(6), which permits immediate appeal of custody/parental-responsibility allocations. The court held it could review the November 9, 2022 allocation judgment (which included Rule 304 language) and the October 14, 2022 decision-making order on which it was based. The separate September 19, 2022 order granting exclusive possession of the marital home was not properly appealable under Rule 304(b)(6) and lacked appropriate 304(a) language for independent appeal, so appellate review of the home award was dismissed.
- Allocation analysis: Applying 750 ILCS 5/602.5(a), the court deferred to the trial court’s findings on factual matters (manifest-weight review). The GAL’s recommendation, testimony that the mother was the primary caregiver and decision-maker, the father’s long-distance work schedule, his admitted failure/unwillingness to communicate, and evidence the nesting arrangement was dysfunctional supported the trial court’s determination that awarding sole decision-making to the mother served the children’s best interests.

- Practice implications
- For custody appeals, ensure trial court entries contain explicit Rule 304(a) language when intending to preserve appealability of ancillary property or possession orders. Separate interlocutory property orders may be nonappealable if not tied into the Rule 304(b)(6) parental-responsibility judgment.
- Develop and document evidence on (1) primary-caregiver role, (2) communication between parents, and (3) GAL recommendations—these heavily influence allocation determinations and are entitled to deference on appeal.
- When challenging allocation decisions, expect manifest-weight review on factual findings and limited appellate scope where interlocutory jurisdiction is invoked.