In re Marriage of Neal

Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 10/21/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary: <h3>Case Information</h3> <strong>Title:</strong> In re Marriage of Thomas Neal and Mario Neal <strong>Citation:</strong> 2025 IL App (3d) 250101‑U (filed Oct. 20, 2025; Rule 23 non‑precedential) ...

Full Case Summary

Case Information

Title: In re Marriage of Thomas Neal and Mario Neal Citation: 2025 IL App (3d) 250101‑U (filed Oct. 20, 2025; Rule 23 non‑precedential) Court/Lower Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Third District; appeal from 18th Judicial Circuit, Du Page County (Circuit Nos. 22‑DC‑915, 22‑OP‑1407) Judge: Hon. Neal W. Cerne Panel: Opinion by Justice Bertani; Justices Holdridge and Anderson concur

Procedural Posture

Appellant: Mario Neal (self‑represented) Appellee: Thomas Neal Subject: Appeal from dissolution judgment dissolving the marriage and imposing restrictions on Mario’s parenting time (including indefinite suspension unless Mario submits to a court‑approved Rule 215 mental examination). An earlier appeal of the Rule 215 order was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (Feb. 9, 2024).

Background & Key Facts

- Married June 28, 2014; three children born by surrogacy. - Thomas filed for dissolution Oct. 11, 2022; temporary equal parenting time and a guardian ad litem (GAL) were appointed. - Mario repeatedly advanced unsupported conspiracy/abuse allegations against Thomas, the GAL, school staff, and evaluators via a public website, emails (including a sealed photograph of a child’s bare buttocks sent to the school), filings, and contacts with police and multiple agencies. He rebuilt and publicized those claims despite repeated official findings (DCFS, professional regulators) that the allegations were unfounded. - Mario refused to cooperate with court‑ordered evaluators (Dr. Roger Hatcher under 750 ILCS 5/604.10(c) and a Rule 215 examiner, Dr. Robert Shapiro), interrupted evaluations, declined consent to contact treating providers, and failed to attend the court‑ordered Rule 215 exam. He also engaged in threatening communications (including to counsel) and destructive conduct involving the children’s property.

Evaluations & Trial Evidence

- Dr. Hatcher (custody evaluator) observed persistent paranoia, agitation, and refusal to complete evaluation; limited testing (Millon inventory) showed elevated anxiety and a significant elevation on the delusional scale. Hatcher opined Mario was in crisis, posed safety concerns, and recommended restricting parenting time. Hatcher could not complete a full evaluation because of Mario’s noncooperation. - A Rule 215 examiner concluded Mario exhibited an acute psychiatric episode (possible substance‑related or severe personality disorder), that the children faced substantial risk of emotional/physical neglect, and recommended suspending contact until court‑ordered procedures were satisfied. - Trial evidence (testimony, photos, video, emails) documented Mario’s public use of the children in litigation, interference with the children’s access to services, disruptive conduct at the family home and school, and behavior that caused ostracism and distress to the children and school community.

Circuit Court Rulings

- Dec. 7, 2023: court found Mario’s mental condition was “in controversy,” appointed Shapiro as Rule 215 examiner, and ordered Mario to cooperate. - After emergency proceedings and further evidence, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Mario’s conduct “seriously endangered” the children’s health (750 ILCS 5/603.10), awarded Thomas sole educational decision‑making, restricted contact with the school, and temporarily reduced Mario’s parenting time to supervised visits; ultimately the dissolution judgment (Jan. 24, 2025) awarded Thomas all parenting time and indefinitely suspended Mario’s parenting time unless he submits to a court‑approved Rule 215 exam. The court also found no credible evidence of abuse by Thomas.

Issues on Appeal & Standards

- Two primary contentions: (1) the Rule 215 order was improper because Mario’s mental condition was not “in controversy”; (2) the court abused its discretion in finding serious endangerment and suspending parenting time (arguing lack of statutory findings, insufficient evidence, and that suspension was punitive). - Standards: Rule 215 (Ill. S. Ct. R. 215), 750 ILCS 5/603.10 and §§ 602.5/602.7; appellate review for abuse of discretion and factual findings for manifest weight of the evidence. Burden to prove serious endangerment is by preponderance and is stringent.

Appellate Court Analysis & Holdings

- Rule 215: The appellate court held the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. The record, including Mario’s pleadings, public conduct, and expert concerns, placed his mental condition squarely in controversy; the December 7, 2023 order complied with Rule 215 (identifying the examiner and contact information). - Serious endangerment and parenting‑time restriction: The court found the manifest‑weight evidence supported the circuit court’s finding that Mario’s conduct seriously endangered the children’s health and substantially impaired their emotional development. The limitation (indefinite suspension pending compliance with a Rule 215 exam and protective measures imposed) was a protective, not punitive, remedy and fell within the court’s discretion under §603.10. The court properly relied on Hatcher’s and the Rule 215 examiner’s opinions despite investigatory gaps that were self‑imposed by Mario’s noncooperation. - Procedural matters: The appellate court noted Mario’s briefing violated Ill. S. Ct. R. 341 (improper factual commentary, new arguments in reply) and that some claims were forfeited under Rule 341(h)(7). Under Ill. S. Ct. R. 311(a) the appellate decision deadline was extended for good cause due to record supplementation motions and briefing delays. The trial court granted Thomas’s Rule 323 motion to supplement the record; costs of supplementation were assessed against Mario.

Disposition

The judgment of the Du Page County circuit court is affirmed in all respects.

Download PDF Opinion Ask AI About This Case

Ask AI About This Case

Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Neal? Ask our AI assistant below.