In re Marriage of Lippert, 2022 IL App (1st) 220536-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Lippert, 2022 IL App (1st) 220536-U (1st Dist. Dec. 30, 2022) (Rule 23 non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Richard Lippert. Respondent‑Appellee: Jeanne Lippert. Appeal from Cook County (Allocation of Parental Responsibilities).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in relying on (a) hearsay testimony about the children’s pediatrician’s recommendation and (b) CDC COVID‑19 vaccination guidance in resolving a dispute over medical decision‑making.
- Whether the court properly modified the parties’ joint medical decision‑making (Allocation Judgment) to give the mother sole authority to vaccinate the children against COVID‑19 under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(c) (standard: best interests / substantial change).

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not err and that granting Jeanne temporary exclusive decision‑making authority to vaccinate the children in accordance with CDC guidelines was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction: appeal permissible under Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(6) for custodial/parental responsibility modifications.
- Standard: modification requires a preponderance showing of a substantial change and that modification serves the child’s best interests (750 ILCS 5/610.5(c)); appellate review is deferential — reversal only if the decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Trial evidence: both parents testified; mother relied on the children’s long‑term pediatrician (Dr. Sharma) and CDC recommendations. Father objected to hearsay but the court credited the pediatrician’s recommendation (as related in testimony) and expressly considered CDC guidance and public‑health expertise.
- The trial court found the pediatrician’s opinion and CDC guidance persuasive — emphasizing scientific expertise, evolving guidance based on data, and no federal recommendation against vaccinating otherwise healthy children. The appellate court found no reversible error in giving weight to those sources and upheld the best‑interests determination.

5. Practice implications (brief)
- When litigating medical decision disputes, secure direct admissible evidence from treating physicians (live testimony or admissible affidavits/reports) and lay proper foundation for public‑health guidance (CDC) to minimize hearsay objections.
- Frame relief under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(c): show a substantial change and tie physician/public‑health recommendations to the children’s best interests.
- Expect courts to give deference to treating‑physician opinions and recognized public‑health guidance; be prepared to counter with specific, admissible medical evidence (e.g., risks like myocarditis) and demonstrate individualized harms if opposing vaccination.
- For emergency/temporary relief, be ready to seek appellate stays promptly (as occurred here).