In re Marriage of Thompson, 2021 IL App (1st) 192555-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Thompson, No. 1-19-2555, 2021 IL App (1st) 192555-U (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 22, 2021) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Virginia Thompson; Respondent-Appellant: David Thompson.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allocating parenting time unequally (relying on a court‑appointed section 604.10(b) evaluator).
- Whether the trial court erred in ordering joint decision‑making for the minor child.
- Whether the court correctly characterized a TD Ameritrade account as nonmarital (gifted funds).
- Whether the court properly determined parental incomes (including refusal to impute or speculate about discretionary bonuses).

3. Holding/outcome
- Appellate court affirmed. Trial court did not abuse its discretion: it appropriately limited David’s parenting time consistent with the expert’s recommendation, permissibly ordered joint decision‑making for health/education/activities, correctly characterized the TD Ameritrade account as David’s nonmarital property, and reasonably determined each party’s income (counting Virginia’s salary but declining to impute speculative bonuses and imputing $40,000 earnings to David).

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: allocation of parental responsibilities and related discretionary family‑law determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be sustained if there is any support in the record.
- The court credited the section 604.10(b) evaluator (Dr. Mary Gardner): her interviews, limited observations, questionnaire data (including low Parenting Alliance Measure scores), and corroboration supported her recommendation that Virginia have primary weekday custody and specified weekend/overnight time for David. The appellate court declined to overturn credibility findings.
- Joint decision‑making was not an abuse because the court’s allocation of parenting time and decision‑making served the child’s best interests based on the evidence.
- On income, the court used Virginia’s actual salary ($214,410) and refused to include speculative discretionary bonuses; it imputed $40,000 to David based on his employment history and recent part‑time work.
- The TD Ameritrade account was traced to an $82,000 gift from David’s mother; Virginia’s later payments were characterized as repayments, so the account was nonmarital.

5. Practice implications for attorneys
- Expert evaluations under §604.10(b) carry substantial weight; rigorously prepare or challenge evaluators (procedures, observations, corroboration, diagnostic claims).
- Trace and document sources of disputed accounts/assets (gifts vs. marital contributions).
- When arguing income, present concrete evidence for bonuses or future earning capacity; courts will not award speculative bonuses. Be ready to rebut imputation with recent earnings, employability, and job search evidence.
- Preserve credibility and factual challenges at trial; appellate courts defer heavily to trial findings.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 (non‑precedential) order.