In re Marriage of S.F., 2024 IL App (2d) 240440-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of S.F., 2024 IL App (2d) 240440-U (Order filed Dec. 24, 2024) (Rule 23(b) order, non‑precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee / Cross‑Appellant: S.F.
- Respondent‑Appellant / Cross‑Appellee: S.G.S.
- Appeal from Lake County circuit court (consolidated Nos. 2‑24‑0390 & 2‑24‑0440).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in (a) allocating parenting time and decision‑making (including awarding sole medical and decision‑making authority to petitioner and denying respondent parenting time), (b) limiting dissemination of a court‑ordered psychological evaluation and related documents, and (c) restricting parental contact conditioned on completion of therapy and a follow‑up evaluation.
- Appellate jurisdiction over challenge to the dissolution judgment.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed in part, remanded in part, dismissed in part.
- The appellate court affirmed the allocation/parenting‑time judgment as not shown to be erroneous.
- The challenge to the dissolution judgment was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The allocation order was remanded for modification to reflect the statutory requirement that a hearing be held before any change to restrictions on respondent’s parenting time.

4) Significant legal reasoning (abbreviated)
- The trial court credited the GAL and court‑appointed psychologist (Dr. Finn), who concluded respondent’s conduct seriously endangered the children (including concerns of coaching, multiple treatment placements, educational absenteeism, and possible Munchausen‑by‑proxy dynamics). The court’s credibility findings and remedial restrictions (sole decision making to petitioner; therapy condition and limited, supervised communications) were supported by that evidence and not shown to be an abuse of discretion.
- The appellant failed to demonstrate that evidence was improperly excluded or that the trial court’s findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The appellate court required compliance with the statutory safeguard that any further modification of restrictions on parenting time must be preceded by a hearing (protecting due‑process and statutory notice/hearing requirements).
- The appeal of the dissolution judgment was dismissed because the appellate court determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider that challenge (procedural grounds).

5) Practice implications for family lawyers
- Preserve record on exclusion/withholding of expert materials and subpoenas (timely motions to compel and specific showing of prejudice are critical).
- When a court limits dissemination of evaluator reports, challenge should focus on procedural error or prejudice, not merely disagreement with findings.
- Courts will defer to credibility determinations grounded in expert/GAL testimony in serious endangerment cases; expect strict remedial conditions (therapy, supervised/therapeutic reunification) when MSBP/parental coaching is alleged.
- Before seeking or accepting an order that conditions restoration of parenting time, ensure the order includes (or the court follows) the required statutory hearing process for future changes to avoid remand.
- Check and preserve appellate jurisdiction/timeliness issues when appealing dissolution orders.