In re Marriage of Clar, 2023 IL App (1st) 221770-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Clar, No. 1-22-1770, 2023 IL App (1st) 221770-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., May 5, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential).
- Petitioner-appellees: Scott and Paula Clar (maternal grandparents).
- Respondent-appellant: David Daidone (father). Mother: Dana Clar (missing/whereabouts unknown at times). Child: D.S.D.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether grandparents satisfied the standing prerequisites of 750 ILCS 5/602.9(c)(1)(A) to seek visitation: (a) parent “missing” for at least 90 days (location not determined) and (b) parent “has been reported as missing to a law enforcement agency.”
- Whether the trial court properly found unreasonable denial of visitation/harm to the child.
- Statutory construction: timing of the required police report relative to the period of disappearance and filing of the petition.

3) Holding / outcome
- Reversed. The appellate court held the grandparents did not meet the statutory standing requirement because their police report was made before the parent’s final period of disappearance (and not after the last period of known whereabouts), so the statutory prerequisites were not satisfied.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Parental liberty interests in custody and association are fundamental; standing provisions in §602.9(c) are safeguards and must be strictly construed.
- The statute requires (1) a 90‑day period during which the parent’s location is not determined and (2) that the parent “has been reported as missing to a law enforcement agency.” The court read the past‑tense “has been reported” and related language to require that the report be made after the parent’s last disappearance and before the grandparents’ petition, not a prior, earlier missing‑person report that preceded the final disappearance or a later determination of location.
- The panel declined to judicially create exceptions for intermittent disappearances due to substance abuse or mental health; any legislative fix is for the General Assembly.
- Emphasized strict construction of standing and that grandparents could have filed a new report or otherwise ensured the statutory preconditions before filing their petition.

5) Practice implications
- For grandparents’ counsel: verify and document a law‑enforcement missing‑person report that corresponds to the last continuous 90‑day period of unknown location and file the §602.9 petition only after those requirements are met. Preserve copies of reports and corroborating communications for the record.
- For parents’ counsel: challenge standing early under §602.9(c) and subpoena/reporting records to show timing of any police report; stress parental constitutional interests.
- For judges: require clear evidence in the record of the timing of police reports and the benchmark 90‑day period before granting grandparent visitation under §602.9(c)(1)(A).
- Note: opinion is Rule 23 non‑precedential; nonetheless, it illustrates strict timing scrutiny of §602.9 standing.