In re Marriage of Kalmar, 2022 IL App (3d) 220306‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kalmar, 2022 IL App (3d) 220306‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., Aug. 4, 2022).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Stephen R. Kalmar (father). Respondent‑Appellant: Heidee L. Kalmar (mother).
- NOTE: Rule 23 order — non‑precedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring the minor child to attend an emergency four‑day intensive reunification program and ordering ancillary measures (no contact during sequestration, mother to participate in parent education, execute releases, write a supportive letter).
- Procedural sufficiency of issuing such relief on an interlocutory basis where no specific prior petition requested that exact remedy, and whether the order impermissibly suspended the mother’s parenting time or transferred custodial rights without §603.10 serious‑endangerment findings.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the TRO. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering emergency intensive reunification therapy and related requirements.

4) Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Standard: TROs are discretionary, extraordinary relief; party seeking injunction must show protectable right, irreparable harm, no adequate remedy at law, and likelihood of success on the merits. Review is for abuse of discretion.
- The appellate court found the issue of parenting time and reunification therapy was already live in the ongoing post‑dissolution proceedings; Stephen had an established protectable liberty interest in parenting (citing Sharpe). The record showed repeated noncompliance by the child (and mother’s assistance/indifference) with prior court‑ordered therapy and parenting time, establishing a factual basis for emergency intervention and potential irreparable harm.
- The TRO was tailored as an emergency, temporary measure to effectuate previously recommended parenting time and to produce written recommendations from the intensive program. The court emphasized the order did not permanently transfer custody but sought to preserve and effectuate the child’s relationship with the father pending further proceedings.
- Requirements (releases, parental participation, letter) were viewed as necessary to the success of the program given prior court‑ordered, non‑confidential therapists and the court’s retained jurisdiction.

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Preserve and document noncompliance with parenting/time and therapy orders — courts will consider repeated defiance as support for emergency remedial measures.
- When seeking therapy‑based remedies, obtain (or seek court to appoint) therapists whose role and confidentiality status are clear in orders; courts may order releases and collaboration when therapy is court‑ordered or non‑confidential.
- TROs are discretionary: counsel must frame imminent harm, lack of adequate remedy, and likelihood of success. Be prepared with in‑camera options and concrete program recommendations.
- Interlocutory appeals of TROs permitted (Ill. S. Ct. R. 307(d)), but appellate relief is limited absent abuse of discretion.
- Remember Rule 23 limits citation value of this decision.