In re Marriage of Johnson, 2019 IL App (2d) 190126-U

In re Marriage of Johnson, 2019 IL App (2d) 190126-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kathleen Johnson (Petitioner-Appellee) and Adam Johnson (Respondent-Appellant), No. 2-19-0126 (2d Dist. Sept. 19, 2019). (Rule 23 order — non-precedential.)

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred by awarding sole decision-making authority over minor children to petitioner.
- Whether the parenting-time schedule ordered by the court was against the manifest weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. Respondent failed to show the trial court’s award of sole decision-making to petitioner was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the parenting schedule was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence nor an abuse of discretion.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: factual findings reviewed for manifest weight; parenting-time decisions for abuse of discretion. The court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations and to the weighing of conflicting evidence.
- The guardian ad litem (GAL) conducted an investigation and recommended sole decision-making for petitioner based primarily on the parties’ inability to communicate and specific instances of respondent’s conduct that the GAL believed negatively affected the children.
- The record contained concrete examples: a disagreement that prevented a child’s participation in a school reading program; Talking Parents messages reflecting disputes (including a dispute over Noah’s Ark); respondent showing the parties’ wedding video and discussing marital breakdown with the older child; incidents leading to anxious, disruptive transitions and a child running away during a handoff; and respondent’s correcting the children when they called petitioner’s parents’ home “home.”
- The GAL and counselors reported the older child’s anxiety around transitions and possible influence by respondent. Although the GAL found respondent to be an engaged and generally good parent, she concluded that younger children need a primary “home base” and that poor parental communication and the father’s behavior weighed against equal parenting time and supported sole decision-making.
- The court balanced parental involvement (respondent’s school participation, coaching, volunteering) against the need for stability for young children and the demonstrated communication breakdown; it found the trial court’s factual conclusions supported by the evidence.

5) Practice implications
- To obtain sole decision-making or defend against it, build or rebut a record on: parental communication (documented messages, missed cooperation), concrete examples of behavior involving the child in litigation or undermining the other parent, counselor/GAL reports about child anxiety at transitions, and evidence about “home base” stability for young children.
- Preserve and develop the record on specific instances (texts/emails, Talking Parents logs, school dispute outcomes, counselor notes). The appellate court gives deference to credibility and the trial court’s balancing of stability versus parental involvement.
- Remember Rule 23 limits citation value; nonetheless, the decision illustrates how evidentiary specificity and professional recommendations (GAL/counselors) sway custody allocations.