In re Marriage of Palarz, 2022 IL App (1st) 210618

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Palarz, 2022 IL App (1st) 210618 (1st Dist., 3d Div., Nov. 30, 2022).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Thomas Palarz. Respondent-Appellee: Jolanta Palarz. Child: G.P.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review trial-court extensions of an emergency order of protection issued under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion or entered a decision against the manifest weight of the evidence in allocating parental responsibilities by ordering supervised visitation for the father.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction to review Thomas’s challenges to the successive extensions of the emergency order of protection and dismissed that portion of the appeal.
- The court affirmed the allocation judgment: the trial court’s restriction of Thomas’s parenting time to supervised visitation was affirmed.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction: The court concluded it could not entertain the appellant’s attack on the multiple extensions of the emergency protective order. Those orders were not properly reviewable on the record presented (they were interlocutory/procedural in nature and the appellant failed to pursue the appropriate extraordinary or expedited appellate remedy), so the appellate court dismissed that remit for lack of jurisdiction.
- Allocation decision: The court reviewed the parenting-time determination for abuse of discretion and against the manifest-weight standard. The record contained testimony and guardian ad litem recommendations documenting (a) a history of erratic/ threatening behavior by Thomas, (b) mental-health issues and inconsistent medication compliance, (c) alcohol-related incident(s) (DUI citation), (d) supervised-visitation supervisor’s unwillingness to continue, and (e) the guardian ad litem’s recommendation for supervised parenting (pending evidence of stable treatment). Given these facts, the trial court’s decision to limit parenting time to supervised visits was within its discretion and supported by the evidence.

5. Practice implications
- When protective-orders intersect with dissolution matters, litigants must use the correct appellate vehicle and preserve issues (timely appeals or extraordinary relief) if challenging interlocutory protective orders.
- In custody contests involving mental-health or substance-use concerns, courts give weight to guardian ad litem reports, supervisor testimony, treatment compliance, and DUI/other credibility-impacting incidents; lack of corroborating treating-provider testimony or failure to subpoena timely is risky.
- Counsel should: promptly secure and disclose treating-provider evidence, address supervision logistics in the record, seek expedited hearings on protective-order extensions, and be prepared to rebut guardian ad litem recommendations with contemporaneous objective proof of stable treatment and sobriety.