In re Marriage of Hinnen, 2023 IL App (2d) 220421-U

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Hinnen, 2023 IL App (2d) 220421-U (Order filed June 2, 2023). Petitioner-Appellee: Billie Jo Hinnen. Respondent-Appellant: Bryan Dean Hinnen. (Appeal from McHenry County; related earlier appeal on relocation affirmed at 2023 IL App (2d) 220280-U.)

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying respondent’s postjudgment motion to modify visitation/custody after petitioner relocated with the parties’ minor child.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying respondent’s request for a psychological evaluation of petitioner under Ill. S. Ct. R. 215(d)(2).
- Relatedly, whether respondent presented sufficient evidence of a material change of circumstances or of danger to the child to warrant temporary custody transfer.

3. Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying (a) respondent’s motion to modify visitation/custody and (b) his motion for a psychological evaluation of petitioner.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The record showed extensive evidence developed at the relocation hearing: petitioner secured stable, higher-paying employment in the D.C. area, researched appropriate special-education placement for the child (who has autism spectrum disorder, ADHD and anxiety), and pursued treatment that reduced the child’s outbursts. The GAL conducted a broad investigation and recommended permitting the relocation.
- Respondent’s contentions (bullying at school, petitioner’s housing and alleged substance/personality issues, parental alienation) were largely uncorroborated or speculative in the record. He also lacked demonstrated financial resources to meet the child’s needs if relocation were denied.
- Given the evidentiary context, the trial court reasonably concluded respondent had not shown the necessary basis—either a material change in circumstances or imminent risk to the child’s welfare—to justify altering custody or ordering a psychiatric evaluation. The trial court’s discretionary denials were therefore upheld.

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- To successfully seek postjudgment custody modification, plead and prove a material change and concrete harm to the child; speculative allegations and unsupported character attacks are unlikely to overcome a GAL’s contrary recommendation.
- When seeking court-ordered psychological evaluations under Rule 215(d)(2), build a factual predicate (medical/school/behavior records, corroborating witnesses, emergency incidents) that establishes reasonable grounds.
- A comprehensive relocation petition should include concrete education, treatment, and support plans for children with special needs; demonstrating how the move addresses the child’s needs can be decisive.
- Preserve and introduce contemporaneous documentation of visitation interference, missed exchanges, or threats to safety. The GAL’s investigation and report are highly influential—engage cooperatively with the GAL and address its concerns in discovery and hearings.