In re Marriage of Goldin, 2024 IL App (1st) 221428-U

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Goldin, No. 1-22-1428, 2024 IL App (1st) 221428-U (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 22, 2024) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential). Petitioner-Appellee: Jacqueline M. Goldin. Respondent-Appellant: Neil M. Morganstein.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by suspending father’s routine overnight parenting time and limiting each parent to two nonconsecutive weeks of summer vacation.
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review fee orders not included in the notice of appeal.
- Whether fees entered against father should be vacated because they were imposed while his statutory fee waiver remained in effect (735 ILCS 5/5-105(a)(1)).

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s order suspending the father’s overnight parenting time (except during extended vacations) and retaining the 2-week summer-vacation limit.
- The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review fee orders that were not included in the notice of appeal.
- Because some fees were imposed while the father’s fee waiver had not expired, the court remanded for the trial court to determine whether those were court-ordered fees exempt under 735 ILCS 5/5-105(a)(1).
- Other challenged orders were affirmed; father failed to show abuse of discretion.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard: custody and parenting-time modifications reviewed for abuse of discretion. The trial court’s findings rested on competent evidence (expert evaluation and GAL findings) that father’s conduct “significantly impair[ed]” the child’s emotional development. The court relied heavily on Dr. Jaffee’s forensic evaluation (appointed under section 604.10(b) of the IMDMA) and the guardian ad litem’s observations, including the child’s repeated statements opposing overnight stays.
- The appellate court observed that disruptive behaviors that repeatedly impair a child’s emotional functioning can justify restricting overnight parenting time under sections governing allocation and restriction of parental responsibilities (750 ILCS 5/602.7, 603.10).
- Procedural: appellate jurisdiction is limited to matters included in the notice of appeal; fee-waiver protection under 5-105(a)(1) may bar assessment of court-ordered fees entered while the waiver was active, requiring remand for factual/ legal determination.

5. Practice implications
- Preserve fee-related issues in the notice of appeal or risk waiver; track fee-waiver expiration closely—fees imposed while a statutory waiver is in effect may be exempt.
- Expert evaluations and GAL testimony carry strong weight in parenting-time disputes—document child statements and observable emotional effects.
- When arguing for expanded or restricted parenting time, focus on concrete evidence of harm to the child’s emotional development; generalized complaints are less persuasive.
- Consider requesting a parenting coordinator where ongoing communication failures exist; trial courts may appoint one over objection.
- Remember Rule 23 non-precedential status when relying on this order in other matters.