In re Marriage of Jones, 2023 IL App (1st) 221369-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Jones, No. 1-22-1369, 2023 IL App (1st) 221369-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Mar. 24, 2023) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Jeffrey Jones. Respondent-Appellee: Emily Jones. Minor: H.J.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in granting respondent’s petition to vaccinate the minor child against COVID-19 and in modifying the parties’ final custody judgment to give respondent sole decision-making authority limited to the COVID-19 vaccine and boosters.
- Proper standard under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(c) and whether the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not err: it permissibly granted Emily sole decision-making authority limited to COVID-19 vaccination and boosters for H.J. The ruling was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Best-interest and deference to trial factfinder: The court emphasized that credibility and weight of evidence are for the trial court; its factual findings will not be reversed unless against the manifest weight. Here, the court accepted the mother’s evidence and found it persuasive.
- Focus on concrete harms and statutory allocation: The trial court considered the real-world impacts of remaining unvaccinated (school quarantines, missed in-person instruction, social exclusion, masking/participation restrictions, and effects on family interactions) and found vaccination was in the child’s best interest. The modification was narrowly tailored—sole decision-making only for COVID-19 vaccination/boosters—rather than an overhaul of custody.
- Use of public-health guidance and documents: The court took judicial notice of CDC guidance and permitted limited use of Illinois Department of Public Health materials; it excluded cumulative evidence but relied on government recommendations and school communications to show differential treatment of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated students.
- Scientific risk arguments (myocarditis) unsupported: Father’s reliance on partial secondary sources (a truncated JAMA article and generalized myocarditis concerns) was insufficient to overcome public-health recommendations and the trial court’s credibility determinations.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- For petitioning parents: (a) present school communications and concrete examples of disruption from nonvaccination (quarantine notices, lost activities, masking/isolation policies); (b) offer authoritative public-health guidance (CDC/IDPH) and be prepared to show nexus to the child’s best interest. Seek narrowly tailored relief (decision-making limited to the specific medical intervention).
- For opposing parents: rebut with admissible, current, child-specific medical evidence (e.g., pediatrician testimony, peer-reviewed studies addressing claimed risks) rather than fragmentary articles. Challenge foundation/authenticity if relying on internet sources; expect courts to take judicial notice of official public-health materials.
- Litigation strategy: custody judges will defer to trial findings; succeed by developing record on actual harms/benefits to the child and on credible medical evidence. Remember this is a Rule 23 order (nonprecedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1)).