In re Marriage of Katsap, 2022 IL App (2d) 210706 — concise attorney summary

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Eneya Katsap (Petitioner‑Appellant) v. Alexander Katsap (Respondent‑Appellee), 2022 IL App (2d) 210706 (2d Dist. Aug. 2, 2022).
- Appellate disposition: judgment of dissolution affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial judge properly denied petitioner’s timely substitution‑of‑judge motion.
- Allocation of parenting/time and interim child‑care placement (order removing child from a Russian language daycare and placing her in part‑time care elsewhere).
- Enforceability of a ketubah (traditional Jewish marriage document) as a private marital contract/prenuptial agreement under Illinois law and whether portions are contrary to public policy (e.g., restrictions on remarriage or travel).
- Claims of dissipation of marital assets and competing monetary/property claims (business value, account withdrawals, vehicle lease).
- Dispute over frozen embryos: alleged forgery of agreement granting sole control and request for permanent injunction barring use or for a ruling on child‑support obligations for any child born from the embryos.

3. Holding / outcome (trial court posture and appellate disposition)
- At trial, the circuit court: denied the substitution‑of‑judge request as untimely; ordered removal of the child from Chateau Elite and enrollment at Kiddie Academy part‑time; held the ketubah unenforceable under Illinois law (usurps court authority over child support and property division and contains unconscionable terms); and set the embryo dispute for trial.
- On appeal the appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings (opinion provides specific directions on the issues remanded).

4. Significant legal reasoning (trial court findings emphasized in opinion)
- Substitution: denial based on untimeliness and that substantive rulings had already been made.
- Child‑care: the court focused on the child’s best interests (concern about full‑time day care, language exposure, COVID precautions, and guardian ad litem’s inability to obtain information from the chosen facility); the court rejected counsel’s attempt to rely on continued enrollment as a fait accompli.
- Ketubah: trial court characterized the document as impermissibly attempting to preempt statutory allocation of child support and property division; certain provisions (e.g., barring remarriage or restricting travel) were deemed against public policy or unconscionable; the court viewed enforcement as implicating religious vows rather than a private enforceable secular contract absent appropriate legal elements and proof.

5. Practice implications for family lawyers
- Challenge/defend ketubot and other religious/prenup formulas by addressing (1) whether they meet statutory prenuptial requirements, (2) whether terms violate public policy (child support, property division, personal freedoms), and (3) proof: certified translations, authentication, and evidence of meeting contract formalities.
- Preserve substitution rights early; bring substitution motions before substantive rulings are entered.
- When litigating childcare placement, be prepared to address guardian ad litem access, facility compliance with health/safety rules, language considerations, and demonstrate best‑interest evidence.
- In disputes over embryos, secure clear documentary proof (consent forms, chain of custody, signatures) and seek prompt injunctive relief when alleged forgery or unilateral use is claimed.
- On dissipation claims, contemporaneous documentation and notice are critical; adversaries withdrawing funds or liquidating leases during separation should be memorialized and litigated promptly.

(Word count ≈ 370)