In re Marriage of Kreid

Full Case Summary

Case

In re Marriage of Zelpha Kreid v. Kaleb Kreid, No. 5-25-0187 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist. 2025). Presiding Justice McHaney (opinion); Justices Boie and Sholar concur. Trial court: Circuit Court of Williamson County, No. 16‑D‑325 (Judge John W. Sanders).

Procedural posture

Kaleb Kreid appealed the circuit court’s October 30, 2024 contempt order (and the denial of his November 20, 2024 motion to reconsider), arguing the order was criminal in nature and that he was denied the procedural protections required for criminal contempt.

Core facts & background

Post‑dissolution parenting plan (Aug. 17, 2022) gave primary residence to mother, designated her address as the child’s school/residential address, and required mediation before court action on disputes or reallocation of parenting time/responsibilities. In Nov. 2023 Kaleb picked up the then‑11‑year‑old son during a dispute and kept him at his home for about a month; the child initially stayed enrolled in Carterville. By the end of the school year Zelpha texted “He’s not going to [Carterville]” and “Never use my address again.” Kaleb then enrolled the child in the Elverado district for 2024; Zelpha says she learned only after the fact. The petition filed Sept. 26, 2024 sought a rule to show cause alleging direct civil contempt for denial of parenting time (not specifically alleging a school‑enrollment violation).

Circuit court ruling

The court found no denial of parenting time as pleaded but separately held Kaleb in contempt for unilaterally changing the child’s school without first mediating. The child was to remain in the current school. Purge conditions directed Kaleb’s counsel to contact the court‑ordered mediator and have Kaleb pay the mediator’s retainer within 14 days so private mediation could proceed; if mediation failed Kaleb must pay the guardian ad litem retainer/fee and, if he did not purge, he would be liable for $1,000 in petitioner’s attorney fees.

Legal issue

Whether the contempt order was civil (coercive) or criminal (punitive), and—if criminal—whether Kaleb received the constitutional and procedural protections due a criminal contemnor (e.g., written charge, notice, right against self‑incrimination, right to counsel, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, admonitions, and jury right when applicable).

Reasoning

The appellate court concluded the order was criminal in substance despite civil labeling. The unilateral school enrollment was an irreversible past act that could not be undone by mediation or future compliance, and the purge mechanism primarily demanded payment tied to costs the respondent “should have incurred” rather than imposing specific, enforceable obligations to secure future compliance. Those features rendered the sanctions retrospective and punitive, converting the remedy into criminal contempt under governing precedent (e.g., In re Marriage of Pavlovich; Door Properties; Betts). Because the proceedings began as a rule to show cause and the record shows Kaleb was not admonished or afforded criminal‑contempt protections or adequate notice of the specific charge, the circuit court abused its discretion.

Holding & disposition

The appellate court held the contempt order was in substance an indirect criminal contempt and reversed the contempt judgment.

Additional notes

• The respondent’s motion to reconsider was denied (Feb. 5, 2025) and this appeal followed; the appellate opinion proceeded despite no appellee brief.
• This decision is issued under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is non‑precedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1). Date filed: 10/08/25. The opinion’s text may be corrected or changed prior to disposition of any rehearing petition.