In re Marriage of Hipes, 2023 IL App (1st) 230953

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Hipes, 2023 IL App (1st) 230953. Petitioner-Appellee: Caroline Hipes. Respondent-Appellant: Diego Lozano.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court applied the statutory “best interests of the child” standard (750 ILCS 5/602.7) when imposing alcohol-related restrictions on parenting time.
2. Whether the trial court’s finding of serious endangerment (based on substance abuse and related conduct) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
3. Whether the specific restrictions ordered (breath-alcohol testing and certified drug/alcohol counseling) were necessary and appropriately tailored.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court’s imposition of mandatory breath-alcohol testing (via remote-testing systems) and ordered certified drug and alcohol counseling for Lozano was upheld.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: credibility and factual findings are reviewed for manifest weight; trial court has broad discretion over allocation of parental responsibilities and reasonable restrictions to protect the child.
- Evidence supporting restrictions: multiple DUIs (including positive ignition-interlock results), repeated relapses, an incident of domestic battery (guilty plea and order of protection), threats to self-harm while intoxicated, repeated missed/late/positive breath tests under court orders, and documented negative impact on the child (anxiety, withdrawal). The child’s condition improved after court-ordered breath testing began.
- On manifest-weight review, the appellate court found ample evidence to support the trial court’s findings that Lozano’s alcohol use presented a risk to the child and that restrictions were in the child’s best interests. The court credited the trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility and the probative value of the testing record and family history.
- Tailoring and intrusiveness: the restrictions (ongoing breath testing and counseling) were not deemed punitive but reasonably designed to mitigate the risk and ensure safe parenting time. The trial court acted within its discretion to require reliable monitoring and consequences for missed/failed tests.

- Practice implications for family attorneys (brief)
- Records and specificity matter: DUI convictions, ignition-interlock logs, treatment records, police reports, order-of-protection filings, contemporaneous text/emails, and evidence of a child’s emotional harm strongly support restrictions.
- Request specific, enforceable monitoring mechanisms (e.g., Soberlink or real-time transmission systems) and spell out consequences for missed/failed tests in the order. Demonstrate reliability/chain-of-custody for chosen devices.
- If defending a parent, challenge the sufficiency and reliability of monitoring methods, raise tailoring/narrowness concerns, and preserve objections to the statutory best-interest analysis on the record.
- Trial-court credibility determinations are hard to overturn—focus on building an evidentiary record that either supports or rebuts the asserted risk.