In re Marriage of Eckersall, 2015 IL 117922

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Eckersall, 2015 IL 117922 (Ill. Jan. 23, 2015; reh’g denied Mar. 23, 2015).
- Raymond A. Eckersall III (petitioner/appellee) v. Catherine E. Eckersall (respondent/appellant). Child representative and amicus (Ill. Chapter, AAML) participated.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether an interlocutory “Custody/Visitation Injunction Order” (restricting parents’ communications and conduct toward children during dissolution) is an appealable injunction under Ill. S. Ct. R. 307(a)(1).
- Whether the Illinois Supreme Court should reach the merits under the public‑interest exception to mootness after the circuit court entered a final dissolution order.

3. Holding/outcome
- Appeal dismissed as moot; appellate court judgment vacated. The Supreme Court declined to decide whether the interim order was an appealable injunction because the case was moot and the public‑interest exception did not apply.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Mootness: The July 10, 2013 interim order was superseded by a June 9, 2014 final dissolution order, so the Court could not grant effective relief.
- Public‑interest exception: The Court applied the three‑part test (substantial public concern; need for authoritative guidance to public officers; likelihood of future recurrence) and found all three unmet. The order at issue was a localized “form” order used primarily in Cook County family cases, not of sufficient breadth to affect the public as a whole; no conflicting precedent demonstrated a need for authoritative statewide guidance; and there was insufficient indication the issue was likely to recur such that it would evade review. The Court contrasted this case with In re A Minor and In re R.V., where statewide statutory or systemic public interests justified exception application.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Preservation timing: Interlocutory appeals to challenge temporary injunction‑style family orders risk mootness if final judgment later supersedes them; seek prompt appeal or other preservation (e.g., motions for stay, written findings tying injunctive character to ongoing relief).
- Record and labeling: If counsel intends to appeal under Rule 307(a)(1), ensure the order contains clear injunctive language and factual findings showing the need for injunctive (not merely standard custody) relief.
- Forum variability: Be aware local “form” orders (e.g., Cook County prophylactic orders limiting parental communication about litigation) may be treated as fact‑specific and not compel statewide precedent—consider raising constitutional or broad public‑interest claims with supporting statewide impact evidence.
- Strategy: If relief is later mooted by a final decree, litigants may preserve issues for review by including them in post‑judgment proceedings or raising them in appeals from the final order.