In re Marriage of Johnson, 2023 IL App (2d) 230205‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Phillip Michael Johnson (f/k/a Phillip Michael Gorrill) v. Jessica Ann Gorrill, No. 2‑23‑0205 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Dec. 12, 2023).
- Opinion filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) (non‑precedential). Appellant was pro se.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s October 4, 2021 petition for rule to show cause (alleging respondent failed to place the child in counseling).
- Whether the court erred by not ruling on petitioner’s March 14, 2023 petition for rule to show cause.
- Whether the court improperly considered evidence not introduced at the April 2023 hearing.
- Whether the court abused its discretion by (a) reducing petitioner’s parenting time and (b) denying reallocation of decision‑making (parental responsibilities).
- Whether exclusion of Exhibit No. 85 (an IM‑CAN report) was erroneous.

3) Holding/outcome (short)
- The appellate court affirmed. No reversible error: denial of the Oct. 4 petition; failure to rule on the March 14 petition; trial court’s use of the admitted exhibits; adjustment of parenting time; refusal to reallocate decision‑making; and exclusion of Exhibit 85 were all upheld.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Procedure and pleading defects: the court relied on established pleading requirements for contempt/rule to show cause petitions. Earlier petitions were dismissed or not acted on where petitioner failed to plead the specific nature of contempt and otherwise comply with statutory/technical requirements (e.g., cautionary language, purge terms, arraignment requests). The March 14 filing lacked a noticed hearing, which justified the trial court’s non‑ruling.
- Best‑interests and discretion: modification of parenting time was evaluated under the child’s best interests and reviewed for abuse of discretion. The guardian ad litem’s investigation and recommendations (favoring a reworked schedule and rejecting reallocation of decision‑making) carried weight. The record showed concerns about school attendance, long distance between parents, poor communication, and the child’s exposure to litigation — factors supporting the court’s adjustments.
- Evidentiary practice: the trial court may review admitted exhibits but is not obligated to “parse” voluminous documents absent targeted testimony/foundation. Exclusion of Exhibit 85 was not reversible (issues of authentication/hearsay and proper foundation).

5) Practice implications (practical takeaways for attorneys)
- Contempt/rule‑to‑show‑cause pleadings must be technically compliant: specify the contemptuous act, include purge language/potential sanctions, request arraignment if required, and seek leave/appointment to prosecute when applicable.
- When seeking parenting‑time or decision‑making changes, focus on concrete, substantial changes in circumstances and best‑interest evidence (school stability, communication, GAL reports).
- Don’t overload the court with un‑parsed volumes of documents — admit discrete exhibits and use witness examination to highlight key parts; lay proper foundation and authenticate psychosocial reports (e.g., IM‑CAN) before tendering them.
- Preserve objections at the hearing (including to scope of matters listed for disposition) to avoid forfeiture on appeal.