In re Marriage of Staszak, 2022 IL App (2d) 210427-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Staszak, 2022 IL App (2d) 210427-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Feb. 16, 2022) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Dawn Staszak. Respondent-Appellee: Christopher Staszak.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in modifying respondent’s maintenance obligation after job loss and later re-employment.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s motion to modify the parenting schedule (seeking greater weekday custody) based on concerns about respondent’s alcohol use and children’s school performance.
- Whether the court erred in denying petitioner’s requests for contempt findings and related sanctions for alleged violations of the allocation/parenting order (alleged alcohol use during parenting time and Soberlink noncompliance).

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion: it permissibly modified maintenance, denied petitioner’s request to change the parenting schedule, and denied contempt sanctions.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: abuse of discretion for modification and parenting-time determinations; findings of fact entitled to deference.
- Maintenance: trial court found a substantial change in respondent’s circumstances (layoff/severance, unemployment, later re-employment) supporting modification; the appellate court deferred to the trial court’s balancing of equities and factual finding that modification was appropriate.
- Parenting/time and contempt: the court relied on the record of intensive alcohol monitoring (Soberlink), treatment records (outpatient program at Linden Oaks), and forensic evaluation by Dr. Daniel Hynan. Although there was a serious January 2019 incident (police welfare check, high BAC, DCFS indication), subsequent evidence showed the children reported no recent fear, treatment occurred, and Soberlink results were overwhelmingly compliant (only a few noncompliant/low-BAC readings among thousands of tests). Dr. Hynan recommended continued monitoring rather than termination of parenting time. The court concluded petitioner failed to prove ongoing, imminent endangerment or a willful violation meriting contempt. The appellate court upheld these credibility and fact findings.

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Trial courts get broad discretion on maintenance modifications and parenting-time decisions; appellate reversal is unlikely absent clear abuse.
- When alleging endangerment or seeking contempt for substance use, compile robust contemporaneous proof: full Soberlink logs, treatment/discharge notes, school records, DCFS findings, and qualified forensic evaluations addressing current risk and prognosis.
- Experts who recommend continued monitoring (vs. suspension) are influential—be prepared to rebut with concrete, recent adverse events if seeking restriction.
- For maintenance-defense: document unemployment, severance, job-search efforts, and actual income to support temporary abatement/modification.
- Note: this is a Rule 23(b) order and non‑precedential except in limited circumstances.