In re Marriage of Garnhart, 2025 IL App (4th) 241511-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Garnhart, 2025 IL App (4th) 241511-U. Petitioner-Appellee: Justin Garnhart. Respondent-Appellant: Meghan Garnhart. Appeal from Winnebago County (No. 17D41).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the circuit court erred in denying respondent’s motion to modify an order restricting her parenting time (supervised parenting time and monitored calls).
2) Whether the court was required to reference the statutory factors (750 ILCS 5/603.10(a)) in its written order.
3) Whether the court improperly relied on respondent’s lack of “accountability,” her in‑court conduct, the daughters’ wishes, or discredited therapist testimony in reaching its decision.

- Holding / outcome
The Fourth District affirmed. The appellate court concluded respondent failed to show reversible error in the circuit court’s denial of her motion to modify the parenting‑time restrictions.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Standard: modification of parenting time is reviewed for abuse of discretion; credibility and weight of evidence are for the trial court.
- The trial court’s findings (detailed in its earlier 2019 decision) documented many instances of hostility, violations of court orders, interference with transitions, and other misconduct toward petitioner and conduct likely to harm the children. The record included monitored phone calls, testimony, prior contempt findings, criminal proceedings, and GAL recommendations.
- The appellate court found the trial court’s decision was supported by the evidence and not an improper legal standard. It need not verbatim recite the statute or each statutory factor so long as the record and the written decision reflect consideration of relevant matters. Credibility determinations (including discounting therapist testimony and respondent’s denials) were within the trial court’s province.
- Considering the children’s expressed wishes, the historical pattern of behavior, and the risk of recurrence, the court permissibly kept supervision in place despite some successful supervised visits.

- Practice implications
- Trial courts have broad discretion to maintain supervised parenting time when supported by a documented pattern of misconduct, violations of orders, and risks to the children. Appellate courts defer to credibility and fact findings.
- To succeed on modification, litigants should produce persuasive, admissible evidence of changed circumstances (comprehensive evaluations, documented treatment compliance, credible expert testimony, and a concrete safety/parenting plan).
- Courts are not required to quote statutory language verbatim in written orders, but a clear record showing consideration of relevant factors is essential. Pro se litigants face increased risk; competent counsel and compliance with court‑ordered assessments/treatment materially affect outcomes.