In re Marriage of Toska, 2019 IL App (2d) 190164-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Toska, No. 2-19-0164, Order (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Aug. 26, 2019) (Rule 23 order — nonprecedential). Petitioner-Appellee: Arben Toska; Respondent-Appellant: Michelle Yeakel‑Toska. Appeal from Du Page County (domestic-relations matter concerning allocation of parental decision-making).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court’s finding that the children were not subject to physical violence, unnecessary corporal punishment, or abuse was against the manifest weight of the evidence; and 2) whether the court erred in awarding sole decision‑making responsibility to the father under the best‑interest framework of 750 ILCS 5/602.5.

- Holding / outcome
Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and upheld the trial court’s award of sole decision‑making to Arben, while awarding parenting time to Michelle.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: credibility and factual findings are for the trial court and will not be reversed unless against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The court gave great weight to the guardian ad litem (GAL), who had interviewed the children and collaterals, investigated a 2014 DCFS report (found untrue), and recommended sole decision‑making for the father to preserve the children’s current school/structure. The GAL reported the children denied physical striking.
- The trial court found a key witness (the father’s former partner) “completely incredible” because her trial testimony contradicted prior statements to the GAL and was impeached by motives (financial requests). The court expressly disregarded that testimony.
- The court applied the statutory best‑interest factors (750 ILCS 5/5‑602.5 and related provisions), emphasizing the children’s adjustment, stability (school/IEP), parental cooperation history, and absence of reliable evidence of physical abuse.
- The appellate court also criticized the appellant’s deficient brief for violating Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(6) (one‑sided, omitted contrary evidence), but exercised discretion to consider the appeal.

- Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Trial courts get broad deference on credibility — inconsistent collateral statements (and motives) are fatal to claims of abuse if not corroborated.
- GAL testimony and thorough investigations (including DCFS outcomes and child interviews) carry significant weight; challenge or bolster GAL findings early.
- Preserve and present contemporaneous, corroborative evidence of abuse (medical, school, witnesses) rather than relying on belated or inconsistent testimony.
- Be careful with stipulations limiting the evidentiary time frame; issues predating the stipulation may be excluded.
- Comply strictly with Rule 341 briefing requirements — appellate courts may penalize or disregard noncompliant submissions.
- Court can grant sole decision‑making to one parent while still awarding visitation/parenting time to the other; litigate both access and decision‑making separately and with targeted evidence.