In re Marriage of H.F.-M., 2019 IL App (1st) 182469-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of H.F.-M., No. 1-18-2469, 2019 IL App (1st) 182469‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Dec. 13, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellant: H.F.-M. (wife). Respondent‑Appellee: K.M. (husband). Child: S.M.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in crediting the court‑appointed psychologist over petitioner’s expert witnesses in allocating parental responsibilities and parenting time.
2. Whether the trial court’s grant of an order of protection (OP) to husband was erroneous (and whether that issue remains justiciable).
3. Whether petitioner was denied equal protection or a fair trial by an allegedly partial tribunal.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court dismissed as moot petitioner’s appeal of the circuit court’s grant of the OP (no live controversy). It affirmed the trial court’s custody/parenting‑time decision: husband awarded sole parenting responsibilities and unsupervised parenting time; wife restricted to supervised parenting time. Claims of equal protection violation and denial of a fair trial were rejected. Decision affirmed in relevant parts; OP appeal dismissed.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Mootness: The court held the OP appeal moot because the protective order had expired and no live controversy remained.
- Deference to trial court on credibility: The appellate court emphasized the trial court’s broad discretion in custody matters and its superior opportunity to observe witness demeanor. The trial court’s choice to credit the court‑appointed psychologist—who conducted neutral, in‑person evaluations and was extensively examined by the court—over petitioner’s experts was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The record contained extensive testimony (nearly 1,500 pages), police reports, emergency OP proceedings, hospital evaluation, and multiple expert opinions; the trial court’s assessment that the neutral psychologist’s findings were more persuasive was supported.
- Procedural/fair trial claims: The court found no objective evidence of bias or unequal treatment sufficient to overturn the custody determination; pro se status and disagreements with rulings did not establish a constitutional violation.

- Practice implications
- Trial courts get wide latitude in custody allocations; appellate reversal on credibility is rare—build a strong, contemporaneous record if disputing credibility.
- Neutral, court‑appointed evaluators can be highly persuasive; parties should prepare to challenge methodology and factual bases at trial.
- Be mindful of mootness for time‑limited relief (e.g., expired OPs); preserve issues and seek remediable relief to avoid dismissal.
- Claims of judicial bias require concrete record proof beyond dissatisfaction with rulings.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 (non‑precedential) order—guidance, not binding precedent.