In re Marriage of Gmytrasiewicz, 2019 IL App (2d) 190628-U

In re Marriage of Gmytrasiewicz, No. 2‑19‑0628 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Dec. 12, 2019) (Rule 23 order — non‑precedential)

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kimberly M. Gmytrasiewicz (petitioner/appellee) and Piotr J. Gmytrasiewicz (respondent/appellant), 2019 IL App (2d) 190628‑U. Order filed Dec. 12, 2019 under Supreme Court Rule 23 (not precedent except in limited circumstances).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court improperly (a) restricted respondent’s parenting time to minimal overnights without making required findings that parenting time would seriously endanger the child; (b) allocated a disproportionate share of parenting time and decision‑making authority to petitioner; and (c) improperly required respondent to wear and pay for a SCRAM (alcohol monitoring) device for one year absent specific findings of danger to the child.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. It held the trial court did not err in its parenting time allocation, in awarding primary decision‑making for therapies to petitioner, or in ordering respondent to use an alcohol monitoring device for one year.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: allocation of parental responsibilities and parenting time are discretionary family‑court determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The record supported the trial court’s findings and limitations: the GAL’s multiple reports documented concerns (prior allegations of inappropriate physical discipline of older children, respondent’s pattern of heavy nightly drinking after children were asleep, a positive SCRAM BrAC result of .02, safety concerns such as leaving a stove flame, and delay/reluctance in engaging alcohol treatment).
- The trial court’s step‑up parenting plan and supervisory/conditional measures (limited overnights initially, phased expansion, SCRAM monitoring, anger management, treatment) were tailored to the child’s best interests and to ensuring compliance; the court did not effectively “terminate” parenting but conditioned and staged time to protect the child.
- Awarding ordinary decision‑making (including for occupational and speech therapy) to petitioner rested on evidence that she had been primary in obtaining services and managing care.

5) Practice implications
- Courts have wide discretion to impose conditional parenting plans, phased “step‑up” time, and alcohol‑monitoring requirements when supported by GAL reports, treatment records, and incident history; explicit magic‑word findings are less critical where the record demonstrates safety concerns and a best‑interests analysis.
- Document and present concrete evidence of violations (positive tests, admissions, prior child‑safety incidents, missed treatment) to justify monitoring/conditions; conversely, litigants seeking more time should proactively rebut such evidence and show compliance with treatment and testing.
- SCRAM orders and supervised/conditioned overnights are viable tools when there is a documented risk related to substance use; appellate relief is unlikely absent a clear abuse of discretion.