In re Marriage of Jones, 2024 IL App (2d) 240229-U

In the case In re Marriage of Jessica Jones, the Second District Appellate Court of Illinois addressed an appeal by Martin Jones concerning a trial court's order appointing a parenting coordinator in the dissolution of his marriage to Jessica Jones. The appellate court found that while the trial court's order generally complied with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 909, it erred in certain aspects.

Key points of the appellate court's ruling include:

1. Parenting Coordinator Authority: The order granted the parenting coordinator inappropriate powers to make "decisions" instead of merely "recommendations" as outlined in Rule 909. The appellate court clarified that while parenting coordinators can resolve conflicts, they should not issue decisions that are automatically entered into evidence without proper context.

2. Requiring Waivers: The trial court's requirement for the parties to waive their due process rights during the parenting coordination process was deemed improper. The appellate court emphasized that the waiver of constitutional rights must be voluntary and cannot be mandated by the court.

3. Review Standards: The appellate court found that the trial court set forth a higher standard for reviewing the parenting coordinator's decisions than what is established in Rule 909, which specifies de novo review—meaning the reviewing court should assess the facts anew without deference to the previous ruling.

4. Financial Disclosures and Other Provisions: The appellate court upheld portions of the parenting coordinator's authority, including the right to request financial disclosures related to issues like extracurricular activities. However, respondent's other challenges regarding the scope of the parenting coordinator's authority were largely dismissed as unsubstantiated.

5. Jurisdiction Limits: The appellate court dismissed issues related to the potential for attorney misconduct complaints as those do not affect the care or custody of minors, thus falling outside its jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the appellate court vacated specific provisions of the trial court's order that imposed higher review standards and mandated the waiver of due process rights, affirming the remainder of the order and remanding for redrafting compliant with its findings.