In re Marriage of Proccichiani, 2022 IL App (2d) 210121-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Proccichiani, 2022 IL App (2d) 210121‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Jan. 28, 2022) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner: Emily Proccichiani; Respondent/Appellant: Sergio Proccichiani; Guardian ad litem (GAL): Thomas A. Vaclavek (GAL was also petitioner‑appellee).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Respondent’s motion to substitute the GAL.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the GAL his requested fees (including allocating prejudgment fees to Respondent and recognizing payments made by Petitioner and a post‑petition fee waiver for Respondent).

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (a) denying Respondent’s motion to substitute the GAL and (b) awarding the GAL fees.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: abuse of discretion for both GAL substitution and fee awards.
- Continuity and child welfare: the trial court reasonably concluded the GAL was “instrumental” to the agreed parenting plan and that substitution would disrupt ongoing services and delay resolution — a consideration tied to the children’s best interests.
- Complexity and intermediary role: the case involved overlapping plenary and emergency orders of protection (protecting different parties/children from each parent), creating a need for the GAL to act as an intermediary. The court reasonably relied on the GAL’s continuity and institutional knowledge given that complexity.
- Billing disputes not a basis for substitution: the court noted line‑item disputes over invoices are properly addressed in adversary proceedings on fee petitions rather than by removing a GAL mid‑case. The parties had earlier stipulated to the reasonableness of certain prejudgment fees; the dissolution judgment allocated these fees to Respondent and specified payment mechanics.
- Fee allocation and waiver: the court awarded fees and recognized that Respondent had an approved fee waiver after Nov. 19, 2020, which the court applied to post‑waiver GAL fees. The record contained some procedural gaps (missing transcripts), but the orders reflected agreement that fees were reasonable and necessary.

5. Practice implications
- Motions to substitute a GAL should focus on concrete conflicts, incapacity, or demonstrated failure to protect children’s interests; mere dissatisfaction or billing complaints are unlikely to succeed.
- Preserve objections to GAL billing with contemporaneous, specific challenges; litigate disputed line items in the fee petition context rather than by seeking substitution.
- When domestic relations matters involve orders of protection or multiple protective relationships, expect courts to favor GAL continuity to avoid delay and disruption.
- If a party stipulates to reasonableness of fees, the stipulation can be binding and affect later allocations; courts may also apply fee waivers to GAL fees entered post‑application.
- Ensure full record/transcripts of fee hearings — appellate review is hampered when transcripts are missing.