In re Marriage of Strezo, 2023 IL App (3d) 220111-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Strezo, 2023 IL App (3d) 220111-U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. Mar. 27, 2023) (Rule 23 order — non‑precedential). Petitioner/Appellee: Laura P. Strezo (n/k/a Laura Strepek). Respondent/Appellant: Joseph W. Strezo.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying father’s motion to modify the final parenting plan (reallocation of parenting time/designation of custodial parent).
2. Whether the trial court erred in striking paragraph 3.11 of the parenting plan (a provision stating holiday/special periods commence at 6:00 p.m. the day prior) as inconsistent with paragraph 3.5 (which specified holiday times as 9:00 a.m.–8:00 p.m. unless otherwise specified).

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) denying Joseph’s motion to modify the parenting plan and (2) striking paragraph 3.11 and directing that holiday times be governed by paragraph 3.5.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Modification: The record showed contested factual assertions about longstanding practice but no convincing basis to reallocate custody/parenting time. The court acted within its discretion given the “he‑said/she‑said” nature of the evidence and absence of an adequate showing of the statutory standard for modification (i.e., substantial change in circumstances affecting the children’s best interests).
- Striking 3.11: The trial court found paragraphs 3.5 and 3.11 inconsistent and the coexistence of both caused recurring disputes. To eliminate ambiguity and prospective abuse, the court struck the later‑quoted paragraph 3.11 and clarified that holiday times are governed by the specific times in paragraph 3.5. The appellate court affirmed that clarification/striking was appropriate rather than enforcing a disputed, ambiguously phrased clause.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- Modification motions must establish the statutory standard (substantial change affecting children) with clear, objective evidence of changed circumstances or harmful effects — anecdotal or mutually inconsistent practices are risky.
- Draft parenting plans with precise, non‑conflicting holiday/time provisions (avoid overlapping general vs. specific clauses). If a conflict exists, courts may strike ambiguous language and default to the clearer provision.
- To avoid future litigation, use agreed written amendments for any long‑term deviations from the judgment (include specific start/end times, transport/overnight rules, and right‑of‑first‑refusal mechanics). Preserve documentary or testimonial evidence of long‑standing practice if relying on it to support modification or enforcement.