In re Marriage of Kyle D.W., 2022 IL App (5th) 220221-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kyle D.W., 2022 IL App (5th) 220221‑U.
- Petitioner/Appellee: Kyle D. W. — Respondent/Appellant: Brittany C. W.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL).
- Whether the court abused its discretion in restricting respondent’s parenting time and prohibiting a third party (Logan) from being present during her parenting time.
- Whether designating petitioner’s address as the child’s primary school address was against the manifest weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion.
- Whether denying maintenance was against the manifest weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion.
- Whether the court erred by refusing to find petitioner dissipated marital assets.
- Whether funds respondent received from her parents were marital or nonmarital.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all respects. The denial of a GAL, the parenting‑time restrictions, the designation of petitioner’s address for school, the denial of maintenance, the refusal to find dissipation, and the characterization of parental funds as marital were all upheld.

4. Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Standard of review: abuse of discretion for GAL appointment, parenting‑time/maintenance decisions; manifest‑weight review for factual findings (dissipation, classification of funds, primary residence).
- GAL: trial court reasonably concluded a GAL would add cost, delay, and no evidentiary benefit given the record and witnesses; appointment is not automatic.
- Parenting time/third‑party restriction: trial court acted within its discretion in limiting the third party’s presence where record showed prior domestic‑violence convictions and protection orders involving that third party and evidence bearing on the child’s best interests.
- School address: appellate court found the trial court’s factual assessment (stability/parenting arrangement and evidence) supported using petitioner’s address as the child’s primary school address — not manifestly unjust.
- Maintenance and dissipation: court’s findings that maintenance was not warranted on the record and that transfers/withdrawals did not constitute actionable dissipation were supported by the evidence and not an abuse of discretion.
- Classification of parental funds: although the gift letter named respondent, the trial court reasonably concluded the $27,000 was a wedding/down‑payment gift to the couple and thus marital.

5. Practice implications for attorneys
- GAL requests must show concrete need (unique expertise or evidence a GAL would elicit); emphasize incremental value to avoid denial.
- Preserve and develop the record on third‑party risks (convictions, protection orders) when seeking parenting‑time restrictions.
- For school‑address disputes, present evidence of stability, actual residence patterns, and parenting time to support primary‑residence claims.
- When alleging dissipation, document timing (post‑irretrievable breakdown) and non‑marital use of funds; track withdrawals/transfers with contemporaneous explanations.
- To protect gifted funds as nonmarital, secure clear contemporaneous documentation (gift letters specifying to whom and for what purpose) and use tracing to show segregated treatment.