In re Marriage of Lemke, 2021 IL App (2d) 210168-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Lemke, 2021 IL App (2d) 210168-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Aug. 30, 2021) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Harold C. (Hal) Lemke, III. Respondent-Appellant: Kaylie L. Lemke. Underlying child: C.L. (born 2012).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred (as against the manifest weight of the evidence) in denying mother’s petition for joint decision‑making authority over the child’s medical care.
- Whether the court abused discretion in modifying parenting time (increasing mother’s time) based on a substantial change of circumstances and the child’s best interests.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court concluded the trial court’s denial of joint medical decision‑making and its grant of increased (but not all requested) parenting time were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: manifest‑weight/abuse‑of‑discretion review of the trial court’s best‑interest findings and modification decision.
- Substantial change: the trial court found changed circumstances (parents now live within walking distance, child older with behavioral improvements) supporting modification.
- Best interests and parental conflict: the trial court relied on evaluator (section 604.10(c)) Kara Anast’s report and the GAL’s report. Anast concluded both parents contributed to conflict but had greater concern about mother’s inconsistency and interference; recommended father retain sole medical decision‑making and recommended increased maternal parenting time. The GAL likewise favored father for decision‑making.
- The court found continuing high conflict and instances of the mother interfering with medical decisions and misrepresenting facts to providers/school; this supported retaining sole medical decision‑making with safeguards.
- The court fashioned a tailored remedy: father retains sole decision‑making for medical issues but must consult mother on “extraordinary” medical decisions, notify her of appointments, allow access to records, permit second opinions (non‑emergency), and prohibit the mother from scheduling medical appointments without written consent or otherwise interfering.

5. Practice implications (for attorneys)
- Expert evaluator and GAL reports carry substantial weight — retain and prepare evaluators/GALs carefully.
- Demonstrated parental interference, misrepresentation, or inability to cooperate can defeat a joint‑decision request even where parenting time is liberalized. Courts may preserve prompt decision‑making (sole authority) while imposing communication/consultation requirements.
- To seek modification, document concrete changes (proximity, child’s maturity/behavior) and show how adjustments serve best interests.
- If representing a parent seeking more involvement, pursue clear, provable steps (parenting classes, punctual school attendance, documented cooperation) to counter evaluator/GAL concerns.
- Rule 23(b) status: published as a nonprecedential order; persuasive but limited value as precedent.