In re Marriage of Mendoza, 2023 IL App (1st) 210980-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Mendoza, 2023 IL App (1st) 210980-U (1st Dist. Mar. 29, 2023) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellee: Claudia Mendoza, n/k/a Claudia Larkin. Respondent‑Appellant: Christian Mendoza.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court impermissibly relied on the child representative’s (§ 506) position statement when modifying parenting time;
2) Whether admission of hearsay (statements to DCFS, police, therapists and others) constituted reversible error;
3) Whether the reallocation of parenting time was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Holding/outcome
The First District affirmed. The trial court did not improperly rely on the child representative’s position statement, any hearsay rulings did not warrant reversal, and the modification was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Child representative (§ 506) materials: The appellate court reiterated that a § 506 child representative is an officer of the court and may file position statements, but the trial court may not base a decision solely on the child representative’s assertions. Here, the record contained independent, admissible evidence (testimony, therapist communications, DCFS/police involvement, video recordings, receipts, etc.) that supported the court’s findings. The court therefore did not impermissibly delegate its fact‑finding to the child representative.
- Hearsay: Appellant failed to show prejudice or abuse of discretion. Many statements were either admissible under exceptions or were corroborated and cumulative; the court’s consideration of those statements was not outcome‑determinative in a way that would require reversal.
- Manifest weight/deference: The appellate court applied the usual deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings. Substantial change in circumstances relating to the children’s mental‑health, alleged physical conduct and interference with therapy justified modification; the evidence supported the change and the parenting reallocation.

- Practice implications for family lawyers in Illinois
- When a § 506 child representative is involved, secure and preserve admissible supporting evidence (therapist reports, DCFS/police documents, videos, receipts, contemporaneous communications) — courts may consider the representative’s filings together with independent proof.
- Object and seek limiting instructions where hearsay is offered; but plan to corroborate out‑of‑court statements to blunt appellate attack.
- For modification petitions, document the “substantial change” and tie it to best‑interest factors with third‑party corroboration (medical/therapy records, mandated‑reporter actions).
- Preserve specific hearsay/child‑rep reliance objections on the record to enable appellate review.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 (non‑precedential) disposition; persuasive but not binding authority.