In re Marriage of Royer, 2025 IL App (2d) 240378

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Royer, 2025 IL App (2d) 240378. Petitioner–Appellant: Gresha R. Royer. Respondent–Appellee: Brock C. Royer. Appellate Court, Second District. Judgment: Reversed (Jan. 14, 2025).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by modifying parenting time to allow overnight parenting time despite an agreed parenting plan that conditioned removal of restrictions on specified benchmarks (medical/psychological disclosures and GAL verification).
2. Whether the movant (father) demonstrated the required change in circumstances and that modification would be in the child’s best interests when he had not complied with the parenting-plan disclosure conditions and the guardian ad litem (GAL) expressed ongoing safety concerns.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order granting overnight parenting time to Brock. The court concluded the modification was improper given Brock’s failure to satisfy the agreed benchmarks and unresolved concerns documented by the GAL.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The parties’ February 2020 parenting plan expressly reserved overnight parenting time until benchmarks were met, including full disclosure of medical, psychological, and psychiatric records to the GAL and GAL confirmation that disclosures were satisfactory. That agreement was incorporated into the dissolution judgment.
- The GAL’s testimony (and earlier report) documented longstanding concerns: erratic/agitated behavior, past diagnoses (bipolar), allegations of substance misuse/self‑medicating, multiple medical issues and medications, and inconsistent representations by Brock about his medical history (e.g., claims about an inoperable brain tumor vs. later claims of improvement). The GAL repeatedly requested records; Brock provided only partial records and resisted full cooperation.
- The appellate court emphasized that the negotiated parenting‑plan conditions were material and that Brock bore the burden to comply before seeking elimination of the restrictions. Because Brock had not produced the required disclosures and the GAL continued to express unresolved safety concerns, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding overnight time without the statutorily and contractually required verification that it was safe and in the child’s best interests.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- Incorporate clear, enforceable benchmarks in parenting plans when health/safety issues exist; make verification procedures (e.g., direct provision to GAL, subpoena authority) explicit.
- When seeking modification, ensure full compliance with existing agreement conditions and produce medical/psych records; noncompliance is a strong appellate issue.
- Trial courts should make explicit findings on both changed circumstances and best‑interest factors, and address whether contractual benchmarks were satisfied.
- GAL reports and testimony carry significant weight; counsel should proactively secure releases/subpoenas for medical records and anticipate appellate scrutiny if courts modify restrictions absent verification.