In re Marriage of Garnhart, 2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Garnhart, 2021 IL App (2d) 191043‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Oct. 29, 2021).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Justin C. Garnhart. Respondent‑Appellant: Meghan M. Garnhart.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain social‑media posts introduced by the guardian ad litem (GAL) that were not produced in discovery.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by conditioning modification of respondent’s restricted (supervised) parenting time on her undergoing a drug/alcohol assessment and any recommended treatment.
- (Ancillary) Whether the record before the appellate court was sufficient to review claimed errors.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. It held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the social‑media posts (they were made after trial began and thus were not discoverable pretrial) and did not abuse its discretion in ordering an assessment/treatment as a prerequisite to unsupervised parenting time.

4) Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Standard of review: abuse of discretion for evidentiary and parenting‑time decisions.
- Social‑media evidence: The court emphasized timing — the contested posts were created after trial commenced, so the discovery non‑disclosure rule did not mandate exclusion. The trial court retains discretion to admit relevant, probative material introduced by a party (here the GAL) absent prejudice warranting exclusion.
- Conditioning parenting time on assessment/treatment: The trial court’s paramount concern is the children’s best interests. Under the IMDMA (and §603.10(a)), the court may restrict parenting time when a parent’s conduct seriously endangers a child’s mental, moral, or emotional health and may condition restoration on remediation efforts (e.g., assessment/treatment). The record showed repeated troubling conduct (violent or hysterical episodes, incessant profane texts, contempt findings, welfare checks, prior criminal matters and a plenary protection order) supporting the court’s findings and its protective remedial condition.
- Record adequacy: Appellant bore the burden to provide a complete record; absent it, appellate courts presume trial rulings were supported by the evidence.

5) Practice implications (practical takeaways for attorneys)
- Preserve the record: include related orders and pleadings in the appellate record. Absent a complete record, appellate review is limited.
- Social media: warn clients to cease problematic posts; post‑trial/new posts may still be admissible. If late evidence arises, move for continuance or seek limiting instructions and argue prejudice.
- Discovery objections: challenge admission promptly and on the right grounds (timing, relevance, prejudice).
- Parenting‑time contests: courts can lawfully condition restoration on assessments/treatment tied to child safety. Obtain contrary expert evaluations, parenting‑capacity evidence, and ask for explicit factual findings tying conduct to child harm.
- Use GAL evidence proactively and prepare cross‑examination on provenance, timing, and relevance of social‑media materials.