In re Marriage of Koepke, 2019 IL App (1st) 180779-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Koepke, No. 1-18-0779, 2019 IL App (1st) 180779-U (1st Dist. Sept. 30, 2019) (Rule 23 order — nonprecedential).
- Petitioner-Appellant: John Koepke. Respondent-Appellee: Tamara Koepke.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain out‑of‑court statements (alleged hearsay) at a rule to show cause hearing.
- Whether the finding that John breached the allocation judgment and was in indirect civil contempt was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the contempt order’s purge provision (make‑up parenting time by a deadline) was proper.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not err in admitting the challenged testimony, the contempt finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the purge provision was appropriate.

4. Significant legal reasoning (short form)
- Evidentiary rulings: admission of the children’s statements that “they have to leave” and related testimony was reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court concluded the testimony fell within the state‑of‑mind exception to the hearsay rule (Ill. R. Evid. 803(3)) — statements reflecting the declarant’s then‑existing motivation or intent are admissible. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s discretionary determination that the testimony was properly admitted as reflecting the children’s motivation and therefore permissible.
- Contempt finding: the standard for indirect civil contempt requires proof of a clear, specific court order, defendant’s knowledge of it, and failure to comply. The trial court heard supervisor and mother testimony showing regular Saturday visits were routinely cut short and overnight visits largely did not occur. The trial court discredited John’s testimony and credited the supervisor (impartial) and mother; credibility determinations are for the trier of fact and not disturbed unless against the manifest weight of the evidence. That factual finding supported the contempt determination.
- Purge remedy: ordering make‑up parenting time by a set date was an appropriate civil contempt purge condition designed to coerce compliance and remedy the prejudice to Tamara.

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- When pursuing or defending contempt for interference with parenting time, preserve and present: supervisor testimony, contemporaneous logs, texts/emails, and concrete dates/times showing shortened or missed visits.
- State‑of‑mind hearsay (Ill. R. Evid. 803(3)) can be a useful route to admit children’s or third‑party statements about why visits ended, but counsel should still object and develop a record on reliability and context.
- Be prepared to litigate credibility; trial courts’ credibility findings are dispositive absent manifest injustice.
- When seeking relief, request specific, practicable purge terms (make‑up time, deadlines) to give the court coercive/compensatory tools.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 (nonprecedential) decision; persuasive but not binding.