In re Marriage of Knabb, 2023 IL App (1st) 220289-U

In re Marriage of Knabb, 2023 IL App (1st) 220289‑U (1st Dist. July 24, 2023) (Rule 23 non‑precedential)

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Knabb, 2023 IL App (1st) 220289‑U. Petitioner‑Appellant: Kelly Knabb. Respondent‑Appellee: Jacob Knabb. Appeal from Cook County Domestic Relations (Judge Robert W. Johnson).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether emergency orders temporarily suspending or restricting mother’s parenting time (entered while she was briefly pro se) require reversal.
- Whether the trial court’s allocation (making father primary residential parent and giving him sole decision‑making authority) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the court properly imputed income to mother (to $71,000) for child‑support purposes.
- Whether the court erred in relying on the guardian ad litem (GAL) and 604.10 evaluation, or should have found GAL bias.
- Whether the court properly awarded attorney’s fees to father under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) for mother’s violations of court orders.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed in part and dismissed in part. Appellate court affirmed the Allocation Judgment and Parenting Plan (February 22, 2022) and the May 25, 2022 order awarding father $8,982 in attorney’s fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(b). The earlier emergency orders (October and December 2020) were treated as moot.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Deference to trial court: credibility determinations, GAL findings, in‑camera child interview, and the 604.10 psychological evaluation were central and properly weighed by the trial court; appellate court will not disturb factual findings unless against manifest weight of the evidence.
- GAL and evaluator reports, the in‑camera interview, and trial testimony provided a sufficient factual basis for the court’s findings that joint decision‑making was not in the child’s best interest and for designating father primary residential parent and sole decision‑maker.
- Income imputation: the trial court’s factual assessment supporting imputation (to reach child support) was within its province; SSA disability receipt/claims of unemployment did not compel a contrary result absent clear error.
- Fee award: attorney’s fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) were appropriate where mother violated prior court orders and those violations generated reasonable fees.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Emergency orders entered while a party is briefly pro se create appellate hurdles; seek timely Rule 13(c) relief and preserve objections on the record.
- GAL reports, 604.10 evaluations, and in‑camera interviews carry heavy weight—prepare to rebut them with admissible, credible evidence rather than mere argument.
- Imputation of income for support: show concrete proof of inability to work (medical records, SSA findings, vocational evidence) and document non‑income bank deposits to counter imputation.
- Strict compliance with discovery and court orders is critical—noncompliance can produce sanctions and fee awards under §508(b).
- Reminder: this is a Rule 23 order (non‑precedential); persuasive but not binding authority.