In re Marriage of Klocek, 2019 IL App (3d) 190165-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Klocek, 2019 IL App (3d) 190165-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., Sept. 11, 2019).
- Petitioner-Appellee: David Klocek. Respondent-Appellant: Sherri Klocek. (Rule 23 order — nonprecedential.)

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s allocation of parental responsibilities (majority parenting time and decision‑making to father; supervised visitation to mother) was against the manifest weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a trust for the children’s support (proceeds from sale/escrow).

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The allocation of parental responsibilities was not against the manifest weight of the evidence nor an abuse of discretion. The trial court likewise did not abuse its discretion in imposing a trust for the children’s support.

4) Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- The court relied on credibility determinations and extensive testimonial evidence, chiefly the guardian ad litem (GAL) and counselors, that the respondent had seriously endangered the children’s mental/emotional welfare and engaged in conduct suggesting parental alienation. Testimony described: children’s refusal of visitation, allegations of physical abuse by mother, instances of mother’s undermining comments during supervised visits, a discovered cell phone allegedly passed to a child, and concerns about respondent’s prescription‑medication impairment.
- The GAL (E. Fimbianti) and reunification/supervised‑visitation counselors testified that reunification efforts either failed or were not occurring; counselors recommended continued supervised visitation and placement with father. The trial court credited that evidence and applied the statutory best‑interest factors (see section 602.7 considerations referenced by the GAL).
- On trust: the court’s use of escrow/proceeds and imposition of a trust to secure support was treated as a discretionary remedy tied to ensuring children’s welfare and enforcing obligations; the appellate court found no abuse of that discretion.
- Standard of review: factual and credibility findings reviewed for manifest weight; custody and remedial decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion — deference to trial court’s opportunity to assess witnesses.

5) Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Prepare to litigate and document reunification efforts: detailed, timely records from counselors and providers are critical.
- GAL and counselor testimony can be decisive; secure and preserve clinician reports and contemporaneous notes.
- Allegations of alienation, abuse, or impairment require thorough investigation and corroboration; absence of ordered services (e.g., providers not offering reunification) should be documented and brought promptly to the court.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to condition parenting time and to use equitable devices (escrow/trusts) to protect children — appellate courts defer to those decisions when supported by the record.
- Remember that Rule 23 orders are nonprecedential; rely on reasoning and standards but check binding precedent for broader doctrine.