In re Marriage of Dougherty, 2017 IL App (1st) 161893

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Dougherty, 2017 IL App (1st) 161893.
- Petitioner/Appellant: Daniel Dougherty. Respondent/Appellee: Megan Dougherty.
- Appeal from Cook County; judgment: appeal dismissed (First District, Fourth Division, Feb. 23, 2017).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(5) (leave to appeal interlocutory “orders affecting the care and custody of or the allocation of parental responsibilities for unemancipated minors”) authorizes interlocutory appellate review of temporary child support and spousal maintenance orders.
- Whether the phrase “care and custody” can be read to include support/maintenance.

3) Holding/outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court held Rule 306(a)(5) applies to child custody/allocation-of-parental-responsibilities issues only and does not independently authorize interlocutory appeals of temporary child support or maintenance orders.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Plain-language construction of Rule 306(a)(5) and related rules: “care and custody” refers to custodial placement/allocation of parental responsibilities, not to support. Committee comments and the March 2016 amendments focused on terminology changes (custody → allocation) and did not expand Rule 306(a)(5) to cover support/maintenance.
- Rule 311 (expedited custody docket) reinforces that interlocutory appeals under Rule 306(a)(5) are custody-focused; Rule 311 explicitly treats “support, property issues or decisions affecting the rights of persons other than the child” as secondary matters that may be handled only when tied to a custody appeal and not causing delay.
- Precedent and principles: the court relied on the distinction in case law (e.g., Gill) recognizing custody and child support as separate obligations, and applied statutory/rules construction doctrines (plain meaning, in pari materia) to harmonize Rules 306 and 311.
- Court declined petitioner’s argument that “care” should be read broadly to include financial support and emphasized it could not judicially expand the rules’ text.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Do not rely on Rule 306(a)(5) to obtain interlocutory appellate review of standalone temporary child support or maintenance orders. Such issues should generally be preserved for appeal from a final judgment (Rules 301/304) unless they are part of an appeal that legitimately involves custody/allocation of parental responsibilities.
- If support/maintenance must be raised early, tie them to a genuine custody interlocutory appeal (keeping in mind Rule 311’s expedited timelines and the prohibition on delays) or seek other procedural remedies at the trial level.
- Observe appellate procedure strictly: obtain leave only when appropriate, and file briefs and meet deadlines — the appellant here also failed to file a brief, standing only on his leave petition.