In re Marriage of Hinnen, 2023 IL App (2d) 220280-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Hinnen, No. 2-22-0280 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Feb. 21, 2023) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner–Appellee: Billie Jo Hinnen. Respondent–Appellant: Bryan Dean Hinnen.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in granting petitioner’s petition to relocate with the parties’ minor child under 750 ILCS 5/609.2.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying respondent’s petitions for emergency orders of protection (for the child and against petitioner).
- Whether the court abused its discretion in excluding several audio/video recordings of the minor created by respondent and his sister.
- Whether the court erred in denying respondent’s motion to reconsider based on purported newly discovered evidence.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed in all respects. The appellate court held the trial court did not err in (1) allowing the relocation, (2) denying the orders of protection, (3) excluding the recordings, and (4) denying the motion to reconsider.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: the appellate court applied deferential review to the trial court’s determinations—particularly credibility, evidentiary rulings, and discretionary family-law determinations such as relocation and emergency relief.
- Relocation: the trial court’s grant of petitioner’s relocation petition was supported by the record and was not an abuse of discretion. The relocation was evaluated under the statutory framework for moves with a minor child (750 ILCS 5/609.2) and the child’s best interests; the court’s findings (including consideration of petitioner’s employment prospects and caregiving arrangements) were sustained.
- Orders of protection: respondent’s emergency petitions failed to establish the requisite grounds for protective relief; the trial court’s denial was not an abuse of discretion.
- Exclusion of recordings: the trial court’s evidentiary rulings excluding several audio/video recordings of the minor (made by respondent or his sister) were affirmed — the appellate court found no reversible abuse of discretion in the balancing of foundation, relevance, and prejudicial effect.
- Motion to reconsider/new evidence: the court correctly applied the standards for newly discovered evidence (materiality, diligence, and likelihood of changing the result) and did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.

5) Practice implications
- Relocation litigation: assemble a robust evidentiary record on the child’s best interests and the parent’s legitimate employment/financial reasons for moving; expect courts to defer to trial-court credibility determinations.
- Emergency orders of protection: ensure immediate, specific evidence of present danger; generalized or speculative claims are unlikely to succeed.
- Electronic recordings: establish foundation (who recorded, custody/chain, context, authenticity) and address hearsay/child-privacy concerns before offering recordings.
- Reconsideration/newly discovered evidence: act promptly; show due diligence in discovery and that the evidence would probably change the outcome.
- Rule 23(b) reminder: this opinion is non-precedential except as allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).