In re Marriage of Robin L., 2022 IL App (4th) 220472-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Robin L., 2022 IL App (4th) 220472‑U (Oct. 31, 2022) (Rule 23 order, non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: Robin L.; Respondent‑Appellant: Martin L. (Sangamon County No. 19D176).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court applied a “statutorily‑lesser” or different legal standard (a changed‑circumstances standard under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(a)) at the hearing on a motion to modify parenting time, without notice, depriving respondent of due process.
2) Whether the record demonstrates reversible error in the court’s purported use of a lesser standard rather than the substantial‑change standard under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(c) (and the best‑interests inquiry).

- Holding/outcome
Affirmed. The Fourth District found no evidence the trial court applied any lesser legal standard; therefore, no due‑process or reversible error was shown.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The pleadings and prehearing positions framed the dispute around whether a “substantial change in circumstances” had occurred; Martin argued there was none and cited In re Marriage of Salvatore. The court acknowledged that argument during the hearing.
- In its oral ruling the trial judge stated the governing standard as whether “there has been a change in circumstances necessary to warrant the modification” and whether modification is in the children’s best interests. The judge analyzed whether the changes were anticipated (a statutory consideration in §610.5(c)), the parties’ communication, children’s ages/schedules, and concluded the change was sufficient and that modification met best‑interest factors.
- The appellate court relied on the presumption that trial courts know and apply the law correctly (In re N.B.), and noted the absence of affirmative evidence that an incorrect standard was applied. The opinion also references Trapkus (3d Dist.) as clarifying §610.5(a) does not create a separate, lower changed‑circumstances standard for parenting‑time modifications.
- The court further observed appellant failed to show prejudice or preserve a reversible‑error claim (citing forfeiture rules and Saracco).

- Practice implications (for attorneys)
- Plead and argue the exact statutory standard you rely on (cite §610.5(c) for substantial‑change parenting‑time motions) and develop record evidence addressing that standard (anticipated changes, degree of change, best interests).
- If the court appears to apply a different standard mid‑hearing, contemporaneously object, request clarification or a continuance, and put on tailored testimony.
- Preserve appellate issues and include controlling authority (e.g., Trapkus) in briefs; mere assertion of an incorrect standard without showing prejudice or preserved objection is unlikely to succeed.
- Remember Rule 23 orders are non‑precedential; cite relevant precedents to bolster appellate arguments.