In re Marriage of Heaver, 2025 IL App (2d) 250021-U

- Case: In re Marriage of Heaver, 2025 IL App (2d) 250021-U (consol. Nos. 2-25-0021 & 2-25-0075), Order filed June 23, 2025 (Rule 23(b) non‑precedential). Parties: Sean Heaver (petitioner/appellee) v. Christine Heaver (respondent/appellant).

- Key legal issues
- Whether the entry of a plenary order of protection (OP) after dissolution constituted a "substantial change of circumstances" under 750 ILCS 5/610.5 permitting modification of the Allocation Judgment.
- Whether the trial court improperly relied on Christine’s post‑divorce conduct and mental‑health–related evidence in finding a change of circumstances.
- Whether Sean met his pleading and proof burden to modify allocation of decision‑making and parenting time.
- Whether appointment of a parenting coordinator (Sup. Ct. R. 909) was erroneous.
- Appellate briefing/procedure issues (timeliness under Sup. Ct. R. 311 and forfeiture for Rule 341 noncompliance).

- Holding/outcome
- The Second District affirmed. The trial court did not err: the plenary OP constituted a substantial change of circumstances; the court permissibly considered Christine’s conduct and related evidence; Sean met his burden to modify the Allocation Judgment; the appointment of a parenting coordinator was not successfully challenged (Christine’s challenge was forfeited); the court denied Christine’s supplemental brief as noncompliant with Rule 341 and found good cause for exceeding the Rule 311 150‑day target.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Section 610.5(c) requires a preponderance showing that facts arising since the parenting plan/Allocation Judgment constitute a substantial change; if shown, the court then applies best‑interest considerations (750 ILCS 5/602.5/602.7). The appellate court emphasized deference to the trial court on allocation decisions (reversed only if against the manifest weight of the evidence).
- The plenary OP and intervening facts (including police incident, emergency OP converted to plenary, and subsequent limited parenting time modifications) were properly viewed as post‑judgment facts that could justify modification.
- The GAL’s testimony about parental conduct (alleged staged incident, false accusations, interference with medical/educational decisions, and behaviors tending toward alienation) supported the trial court’s findings on best‑interest factors (child’s adjustment, mental/physical health of parties, parental cooperation, history of violence/abuse).
- Procedural: appellant’s repeated/corrected briefing that violated Rule 341 forfeited appellate review of the parenting‑coordinator challenge; Rule 311 accelerated deadlines may be extended for good cause.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Orders of protection entered post‑dissolution can be dispositive evidence of a substantial change warranting modification petitions—plead specific post‑judgment facts tied to 610.5(c).
- Present detailed, admissible evidence on best‑interest factors (GAL reports can be influential, especially re: alienation, medical/educational interference, and parental fitness).
- When challenging trial rulings reallocating decision‑making, expect appellate deference unless findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Comply strictly with appellate briefing rules (Sup. Ct. R. 341); duplicative or noncompliant briefs risk forfeiture. Be mindful of Rule 311 accelerated timelines and preserve record to show good cause for extensions.