In re Marriage of Patel, 2022 IL App (1st) 211000-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Patel, No. 1-21-1000, 2022 IL App (1st) 211000-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. Mar. 14, 2022) (non‑precedential under Sup. Ct. R. 23). Petitioner‑Appellee: Sofia Patel. Respondent‑Appellant: Atik Patel.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in (a) granting counsel’s motion to withdraw less than 21 days before trial and denying a continuance; (b) admitting the guardian ad litem (GAL) report and related testimony/evidence over timeliness/hearsay objections; (c) extending an order of protection and continuing supervised visitation; and (d) engaging in an ex parte discussion with opposing counsel without obtaining the respondent’s express on‑record consent. 2. Whether Atik was denied due process by the court’s procedure and rulings.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. It found no abuse of discretion in allowing counsel to withdraw or in the evidentiary rulings, concluded the record supported extension of the order of protection and supervised visitation, and deemed the ex parte communication error harmless. Due process was not violated.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Withdrawal/continuance: The court applied an abuse‑of‑discretion standard and emphasized that Atik had been warned repeatedly about trial dates, had participated in settlement negotiations, had filed a pro se appearance, did not oppose withdrawal, and had ready access to case materials — facts supporting denial of a continuance and allowance of withdrawal.
- Evidentiary rulings/GAL report: Although the GAL’s report was filed two days before trial and objections were raised, the appellate court found no reversible error because the record showed no prejudice; the GAL’s testimony and documentary evidence (including emails attributed to Atik) corroborated the findings.
- Orders for protection and supervised visitation: Substantial evidence (GAL observations, child statements, admissions by Atik, and an email to his daughter threatening/renouncing the parent‑child relationship) supported findings of emotional misconduct and need for protection/supervision.
- Ex parte communication: Failure to obtain express consent as required by local rules was error but harmless where Atik knew of the meeting in advance and the discussion was transcribed.

- Practice implications
- Timely preserve objections and show prejudice when challenging late disclosures or hearsay; appellate reversal requires demonstrable harm.
- If seeking withdrawal near trial, secure client’s on‑record, preferably written, consent and address access to files; courts may deny continuances when a party has been warned and has been negotiating pro se.
- GAL reports can be persuasive even if filed shortly before trial; try to exclude only when prejudice exists.
- Comply strictly with local ex parte consent rules; if an inadvertent violation occurs, ensure it’s on the record and transcribed to mitigate reversible error.
- Remember Rule 23 status: persuasive but non‑precedential.