In re Marriage of Matt, 2023 IL App (1st) 221405-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Matt, 2023 IL App (1st) 221405‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Mar. 10, 2023) (Rule 23 order).
- Plaintiff‑Appellee: Peter Matt. Defendant‑Appellant (pro se): Megan Matt (n/k/a Megan Mason).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a September 13, 2022 “Temporary Order” that (temporarily) restricted mother’s parenting time, required supervised visits, and temporarily allocated parental responsibilities to father.
- Whether Rules 301 (appeals as of right), 304(b)(6) (immediate appeals in custody matters), 306 (leave to appeal interlocutory custody orders), or 311 (expedited custody appeals) provided a basis for jurisdiction.

3. Holding/outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The order on appeal was temporary/interim and not final; appellant had not sought leave under Rule 306 for an interlocutory custody appeal; Rule 304(b)(6) and Rule 311 apply only to final custody orders; Rule 306 relief was not invoked in the trial court or properly in the initial appellate brief.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Finality: The court applied Rule 301’s final‑judgment standard and Rule 304’s requirement that custody appeals under 304(b)(6) be from permanent custody determinations (Committee Comments; case law). The challenged order expressly labeled and operated as “temporary” and was effective only until completion of a 604.10(b) report, so it did not dispose of rights permanently.
- Procedure for interlocutory custody appeals: Rule 306(a)(5) authorizes petitions for leave to appeal interlocutory orders affecting custody/parental responsibilities; appellant did not petition for leave and raised Rule 306 only in a reply brief (forfeited).
- Rule 311 only creates an expedited procedure for final custody appeals and is not an independent source of jurisdiction.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Interlocutory custody orders: obtain and file a Rule 306 petition for leave before appealing; absence of leave is fatal.
- Distinguish temporary/interim orders from final custody determinations — do not rely on Rule 304(b) or Rule 301 for temporary orders.
- Raise jurisdictional bases (e.g., Rule 306) in the initial brief; do not wait until reply.
- Careful drafting: if an appealable permanent ruling is intended, ensure the order’s language and record reflect a final determination (or obtain the trial court’s express finding under Rule 304 when appropriate).
- Note: this is a non‑precedential Rule 23 disposition, but it underscores common procedural pitfalls that will lead to dismissal and delay in family cases.