In re Marriage of Saunders, 2022 IL App (1st) 210440-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Saunders, No. 1-21-0440, 2022 IL App (1st) 210440-U (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Feb. 3, 2022) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellant: Joshua Saunders. Respondent-Appellee: Lisa Saunders. The appeal attacked both the dissolution judgment (property/financial provisions) and the allocation judgment/parenting plan (decision‑making and parenting time) concerning the parties’ minor child, M.S.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the dissolution judgment where child‑support issues remained unresolved.
2) Whether the trial court’s allocations of parental decision‑making (sole decision‑making to mother for education and religion; joint decision‑making for extracurriculars and healthcare) were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Holding/outcome
- The court dismissed the appeal as to the dissolution judgment for lack of appellate jurisdiction because child support had not been determined; the dissolution order therefore was not final and appealable.
- The court found it had jurisdiction under Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(6) to review the allocation judgment, and it affirmed the trial court’s allocation of parental decision‑making responsibilities.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction: The panel emphasized that an order is appealable only when final (or within a Rule 304 exception). Because the trial court expressly continued/disposed child‑support issues, the dissolution judgment was not final and could not be reviewed on appeal — the portion of the appeal attacking the property/financial provisions was dismissed.
- Rule 304(b)(6): The appellate court held the allocation judgment was appealable under Rule 304(b)(6), which permits immediate appeal of judgments allocating parental responsibilities even if other proceedings remain.
- Merits standard and application: The court reviewed the allocation under the “manifest weight of the evidence” standard, giving deference to credibility findings and the trial court’s balancing of the child’s best interests. The trial court’s decision relied on the guardian ad litem’s investigation and report, testimony (including the preschool director), and documentary evidence (including communications). The panel concluded the trial court’s factual findings and ultimate allocation were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.

- Practice implications for practitioners
- Before appealing a dissolution order, ensure all child‑support and other statutory issues are resolved or that an appeal falls within a Rule 304 exception; otherwise jurisdictional dismissal is likely.
- In allocation disputes, develop a robust trial record (GAL reports, educator testimony, contemporaneous communications such as OFW records) because appellate review is deferential and focuses on whether the trial court’s best‑interest findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Use Rule 304(b)(6) strategically to obtain an immediate appeal of parental‑responsibility allocations even when related financial matters remain pending.