In re Marriage of Contreras, 2022 IL App (1st) 210605-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Contreras, No. 1-21-0605, 2022 IL App (1st) 210605-U (Order filed Jan. 31, 2022, Rule 23 non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellant: Martha Contreras; Defendant‑Appellee: Rigoberto Meraz.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether a private party who files a criminal‑contempt petition may obtain substitution of judge under the State‑oriented criminal substitution statute (725 ILCS 5/114‑5(c)).
2. Whether the trial court properly applied the civil substitution statute (735 ILCS 5/2‑1001) instead.
3. Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review an interlocutory denial of substitution under Supreme Court Rule 604(a).

- Holding / Outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The appellate court declined to reach the merits. (The trial court had denied Contreras’s motion for substitution and treated the matter as civil under section 2‑1001.)

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court first addressed jurisdiction sua sponte: interlocutory orders are appealable only under narrowly prescribed exceptions in the Supreme Court rules. Rule 604(a)(1) permits the State to appeal certain criminal orders (e.g., dismissal, suppression) but applies only to the State and to specific substantive rulings; it does not authorize an appeal by a private litigant from a denial of substitution of judge. The appellate court therefore concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the May 11, 2021 order denying substitution was interlocutory and not among the Rule 604(a)(1) exceptions. Although the trial judge (Judge Murphy) found 725 ILCS 5/114‑5(c) inapplicable because the contempt petitions remained part of the civil dissolution proceedings, and instead applied 735 ILCS 5/2‑1001(a)(3) (requiring proof of actual prejudice after a substantial ruling), the appellate court did not reach or resolve those substantive points.

- Practice implications for family law practitioners
- Interlocutory denials of substitution of judge are generally not immediately appealable by private parties—plan litigation strategy accordingly.
- If pursuing criminal contempt as a private petitioner, be prepared to litigate whether the proceeding is sufficiently “criminal” and whether criminal substitution procedures apply; standing to invoke 114‑5(c) is not automatic for private petitioners.
- When seeking substitution under 2‑1001(a)(3), plead and proffer concrete facts or evidence of actual prejudice tied to a substantial prior ruling—labels or conclusory assertions are insufficient.
- Consider timing and tactical use of peremptory substitution provisions and preserve record on why a proceeding should be treated as criminal versus civil if that distinction affects available remedies and interlocutory rights.

(Note: this order is filed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23 and is non‑precedential except as permitted.)