In re Marriage of Stafford-Cosby, 2019 IL App (1st) 182576-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Stafford‑Cosby, 2019 IL App (1st) 182576‑U (Nov. 5, 2019) (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Rule 23 — non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: Fabia Stafford‑Cosby. Respondent‑Appellant: Theophilius O. Ilevbare (pro se).

- Key legal issues
1) Allocation of parental responsibilities (legal decision‑making) and parenting time; 2) Whether the trial court properly incorporated and enforced a partial parenting plan; 3) Allocation of the child dependency exemption (tax exemption) between parents; 4) Whether the petitioner should be ordered to pay particular medical/daycare costs; 5) Whether respondent’s post‑trial filings were frivolous and whether petitioner was entitled to attorney fees.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all respects: it upheld the order granting joint decision‑making per the parties’ partial parenting plan, physical custody to petitioner with specified respondent parenting time (Thursdays/Fridays and Saturday mornings), alternating tax exemption (petitioner even years; respondent odd years), denial of the respondent’s requests to compel payment/enforce certain claims, and the award of attorney fees to petitioner.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court applied deferential review to the trial court’s factual findings and discretionary rulings on parenting time and allocation of responsibilities. The judgment incorporated the parties’ prior partial parenting plan and reflected the trial court’s assessment of each parent’s work schedules, caregiving history, and the child’s best interests. Emergency relief and post‑trial requests were denied where pleadings and proof were legally insufficient or where the trial court’s ruling already reflected the parties’ agreement and trial testimony. The court affirmed that the trial court did not abuse discretion in structuring alternating dependency exemptions and in awarding fees where the record showed multiplicity/frivolity in the respondent’s filings.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Incorporate negotiated parenting plans explicitly into the final judgment; clear, specific language is highly enforceable.
- Trial courts have broad discretion on parenting time; factual record (schedules, caregiving history, child welfare) is critical.
- Courts may craft tax‑exemption allocations (e.g., alternating years); confirm tax language to avoid post‑judgment disputes.
- Emergency relief and enforcement motions require focused pleadings and evidentiary support; avoid vague allegations.
- Repeated or meritless post‑trial motions can trigger fee awards—advise clients (and pro se opponents will be scrutinized).
- Preserve objections and request rulings on key issues at trial to avoid waiver on appeal.