In re Marriage of Kriley, 2025 IL App (1st) 241923

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kriley, 2025 IL App (1st) 241923 (1st Dist. June 17, 2025).
- Petitioner–Appellee: Paul Kriley; Respondent–Appellant: Alena Kriley; minor child J.K. protected party.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a Rule 215 mental‑health evaluation and related expert testimony after an alleged late disclosure.
- Whether the evidence supported entry of a two‑year plenary order of protection (POP) under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act.
- Whether certain POP terms (appointment of the guardian ad litem as visitation supervisor and allocation of supervision fees) required further proceedings.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s admission of the mental‑health report and the issuance of the two‑year POP (protecting Paul and J.K.).
- The court remanded limited issues for further proceedings: a rehearing on (1) the GAL’s appointment as visitation supervisor and (2) allocation of fees for that supervision (remand grounded in the child’s best interests).

4) Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Evidentiary rulings (admission of expert/report): reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court concluded the trial judge did not err in admitting Dr. Kerry Smith’s Rule 215 evaluation over Alena’s timeliness objection; the report was relevant to parental fitness and dangerousness and any prejudice did not warrant exclusion given the circumstances (discovery history, report’s probative value, and opportunity to cross‑examine).
- Sufficiency to support POP: the record contained contemporaneous incidents (physical altercations captured on video, concealment of the child and international travel to a consulate, threats to harm petitioner and his family, property interference, erratic supervised virtual visits), testimony of the petitioner, the GAL, a rideshare witness, and the expert diagnosing significant mental‑health concerns and recommending treatment before unsupervised contact. The court found that evidence, weighed under the Domestic Violence Act, supported a POP.
- Supervision/fees remand: appointment of the GAL as supervisor and fee allocation implicated the child’s best interests and equitable allocation of costs; the appellate court required the trial court to make explicit findings and reconsider those discrete matters.

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Preserve objections to late expert disclosure but recognize appellate deference; exclusion requires clear showing of prejudice and evidentiary unfairness.
- Rule 215 evaluations remain powerful evidence of parental fitness; counsel should timely litigate foundation and currency issues (especially multi‑year gaps).
- When seeking or opposing supervised visitation, require explicit trial‑level findings on supervisor qualifications, scope, duration, and fee allocation—courts will scrutinize the child‑best‑interest rationale and cost shifting.
- Build a multi‑source evidentiary record (video, witnesses, GAL, expert) when seeking a POP based on risk of abduction, threats, or ongoing dangerous conduct.