In re Marriage of Nolen, 2019 IL App (5th) 180435-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Nolen, No. 5-18-0435 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., Feb. 21, 2019) (Rule 23 order, non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Teresa Leann Nolen. Respondent‑Appellant: William Roy Nolen. Child at issue: Samantha (13 at time of dispute).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s suspension of father’s parenting time was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence based on a finding that the father’s conduct “seriously endangered” the child’s emotional development.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by giving undue weight to the child’s expressed unwillingness to attend parenting time.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court reversed. It found the trial court’s determination that the child’s emotional development was seriously endangered was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the court improperly relied on the child’s stated preference as the effective basis for suspending parenting time.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The suspension of parenting time is an extreme remedy that must be supported by evidence demonstrating serious endangerment to the child’s emotional (or physical) welfare.
- The record contained incidents of past marital physicality and a hostile text exchange between father and child; however, the appellate panel concluded the evidence did not show the level of ongoing, serious harm to emotional development necessary to justify suspension. There was no persuasive testimony or expert evidence that the child was being seriously harmed, and some allegedly abusive incidents were either contested or lacked sufficient detail.
- The court criticized reliance on the child’s refusal to visit as a justification for suspension; a child’s preference—especially from an older minor—may be a factor, but it is not a substitute for evidence of endangerment. The appellate court treated the trial court’s apparent unwillingness to enforce parenting time over the child’s objections as an improper legal basis for suspending visitation.

5. Practice implications (brief)
- To obtain suspension or severe restrictions on parenting time, present clear, contemporaneous evidence of risk to the child’s emotional or physical well‑being (medical/mental‑health experts, counselor testimony, detailed incident proof), not only child preference or isolated hostile communications.
- If defending parenting time, challenge the sufficiency of “endangerment” proof and emphasize less‑restrictive remedies (supervised visits, counseling, specific conduct orders, enforcement mechanisms).
- Draft temporary orders/settlements with clear logistics (transport, modification procedures, right‑of‑first‑refusal, communication protocols) to reduce disputes and evidentiary gaps during enforcement/modification hearings.