In re Marriage of Malhotra, 2019 IL App (2d) 180672-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Malhotra, No. 2-18-0672, 2019 IL App (2d) 180672-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Jan. 7, 2019). Petitioner‑Appellant: Vishal Malhotra. Respondent‑Appellee: Laura Denunzio (f/k/a Laura Malhotra). (Order filed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23(c)(2) — non‑precedential.)

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in modifying the parties’ joint parenting agreement and reallocating significant decision‑making responsibility to mother.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s petition for return of the child and reallocation of primary parenting (including alleged errors relating to various show‑cause/contempt matters and fee awards).
3. Appellate procedural issue: sufficiency of appellant’s brief and appellate record.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. Most asserted errors were forfeited for failure to comply with briefing and record rules; the trial court’s modification of the parenting agreement and denial of return/reallocation petitions were affirmed on the merits.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Procedural forfeiture: The court emphasized strict compliance with Supreme Court Rule 341(h) (content and argument requirements) and Foutch v. O’Bryant (appellant’s burden to furnish a sufficient record). Many claims were forfeited because appellant’s brief was argumentative, unclear, cited no pertinent authority, and failed to provide transcripts or an adequate record of hearings. The court reiterated that absent a complete record, trial court rulings are presumed correct.
- On the custody modification: the court applied governing statutes (petition for reallocation/modification governed by sections 610.5 and petition for return referenced section 602.5) and the settled standard — a modification requires a substantial change in circumstances and must be in the child’s best interests. Review is for abuse of discretion/manifest weight; the appellate court found no reversible error in the trial court’s allocation of significant decision‑making to mother (with religious decisions shared).
- Appellate courts are not advocates and need coherent legal argument and record citations to address claims.

- Practice implications
- Strictly comply with Rule 341: provide an accurate, non‑argumentative statement of facts, cite record pages, state standards of review, and develop legal argument with relevant authority.
- Preserve the record: include verbatim transcripts or acceptable substitutes for all contested hearings; without a record, issues will be presumed correctly decided (Foutch).
- For family law appeals (custody modifications): prepare to show (and put into the record) evidence of a substantial change in circumstances and best‑interest considerations; be prepared to counter guardian ad litem findings and trial court credibility determinations.
- Remember Rule 23 orders are non‑precedential and the burden to show error stays with appellant.