In re Marriage of Fanady, 2022 IL App (1st) 210730-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Fanady, 2022 IL App (1st) 210730‑U. Petitioner‑Appellant: Steve Fanady; Respondent‑Appellee: Gina Demke Fanady.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court erred in ordering temporary transfer of the parties’ minor child and suspending appellant’s parenting time via an order of protection under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act (DVA) rather than applying the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA) best‑interest standard.
2) Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the trial court’s earlier emergency transfer orders and whether those issues were moot.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. It concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider appellant’s challenges to the earlier transfer orders (finding those issues moot) and held the trial court did not err in entering an order of protection that temporarily transferred custody to Gina and suspended Steve’s parenting time.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Jurisdiction/mootness: The court determined the arguments addressing the June transfer orders were not properly before it and were moot given subsequent proceedings; therefore those discrete transfer orders could not be reviewed on appeal.
- Authority under the DVA: The court upheld the trial court’s use of the DVA to issue an order of protection that included temporary transfer of the child and suspension of parenting time. The DVA empowers protective measures intended to secure the safety of a petitioner and a child; the trial court acted within that statutory authority.
- Factual basis: The record showed repeated disobedience of the Allocation Judgment (50/50 parenting time), concealment of the child’s location, failures to effect court‑ordered transfers, father’s refusal to disclose his whereabouts (contempt finding), and indications he was evading process. Those facts supported the trial court’s protective measures as necessary to safeguard the child and mother.
- IMDMA best‑interest analysis: The court clarified that the DVA protective framework, focused on safety, governs such emergency protective orders — the IMDMA’s custody‑reallocation best‑interest inquiry is not the exclusive means to address immediate safety concerns.

- Practice implications for family law practitioners
- Use of DVA for emergency custody relief: When safety or concealment is alleged, counsel should consider DVA relief (order of protection) as a vehicle to obtain immediate temporary custody changes and suspension of parenting time.
- Enforcement and evidence: Meticulous recordation of failed transfers, concealment, communications with law enforcement, and therapy/child‑rep involvement strengthens emergency motions.
- Contempt and cooperation: Refusal to disclose location or to comply with transfer orders risks civil contempt and adverse interim custody consequences.
- Appellate strategy: Preserve issues and ensure appeals are taken from appealable orders; interlocutory emergency orders can be susceptible to mootness or jurisdictional limits on review.