In re Marriage of Jessica A.S.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 9/9/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary:
<h3><strong>Case</strong></h3>
<strong>In re Marriage of Jessica A.S. and Tyler S.</strong>, No. 5-25-0297 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist.), decision filed Sept. 8, 2025.
<h3><strong>Panel & Judge</strong>...
Full Case Summary
Case
In re Marriage of Jessica A.S. and Tyler S., No. 5-25-0297 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist.), decision filed Sept. 8, 2025.Panel & Judge
Presiding Justice McHaney delivered the judgment; Justices Cates and Sholar concurred. Trial judge: Christopher L. Weber.Procedural posture
Jessica A.S. appealed the trial court’s April 2, 2025 order modifying parenting time and denying her request for an in camera interview of the minor child, M.J.S.; she also sought a stay pending appeal.Issues Presented
- Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of parenting time under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(c). - Whether the modification was necessary to serve M.J.S.’s best interests (section 602.7(b)). - Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying an in camera interview under 750 ILCS 5/604.10.Relevant Background
Married 2011; daughter M.J.S. born 2013. Dissolution judgment (2015) awarded joint legal custody with Jessica as residential custodian and visitation for Tyler recognizing his U.S. Army service. Recurrent disputes arose over scheduling, electronic contact (FaceTime/OurFamilyWizard), substitute grandparent visitation during Tyler’s deployments, and access to the child’s phone number. Tyler deployed overseas multiple times, sought firm visit windows tied to military leave, and alleged Jessica repeatedly impeded scheduling and failed to share extracurricular schedules. The parties mediated and entered several stipulated orders (2016–2025); a March 12, 2025 hearing produced an April 2, 2025 written order modifying parenting time.Trial Court Orders (key terms)
- Granted Tyler reasonable parenting time with 14 days’ advance notice (court encouraged more), with overnight visits allowed except when school the next morning (return by 8:00 p.m. on school nights). - Specific short-term dates: Easter 2025 visit (Apr. 18–21, 2025). - Summer 2025: four weeks split between Illinois and New York — Illinois July 13–25, 2025 (return by 6:00 p.m. July 25); New York July 27–Aug. 10, 2025 (Tyler to escort arrival/airport transfer details). - Tyler must transport M.J.S. to extracurricular activities during visits; Jessica must provide activity schedules and contact information and set up OurFamilyWizard. - Court admonished Jessica for lack of cooperation and fashioned a more specific schedule to secure roughly four weeks of parenting time per year.Standards of Review & Applicable Law
- Modification requires proof of a substantial change in circumstances and that modification is necessary for the child’s best interests (750 ILCS 5/610.5(c)). - Appellate review gives great deference to trial-court credibility and best-interest determinations (manifest-weight review); denial of an in camera interview is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Relevant statutes: 750 ILCS 5/102, 5/602.7(b), 5/604.10.Court’s Findings & Reasoning
- Substantial change: The trial court found, and the appellate court held by a preponderance of the evidence, that Jessica repeatedly refused or failed to facilitate Tyler’s reasonable efforts to maintain and develop his relationship with M.J.S., limiting his already constrained time because of military service. - Best interests: After finding a substantial change, the court reasonably evaluated the child’s needs and imposed specific dates and administrative provisions (contact info, extracurricular access, OurFamilyWizard) to promote meaningful, minimally disruptive parenting time. - In camera interview: The court denied Jessica’s oral motion because M.J.S. was not present and the hearing schedules required conclusion that day. The appellate court held that trial courts have discretion to deny such interviews for logistical reasons and that refusal here was not an abuse of discretion.Holdings & Disposition
- Trial court’s finding of a substantial change in circumstances — affirmed. - Trial court’s determination that the modification served M.J.S.’s best interests — affirmed. - Denial of Jessica’s request for an in camera interview of M.J.S. — affirmed. Judgment of the Crawford County circuit court affirmed. (Order filed under Supreme Court Rule 23; not precedent except as Rule 23(e)(1) allows.)Ask AI About This Case
Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Jessica A.S.? Ask our AI assistant below.