In re Marriage of Trapkus, 2022 IL App (3d) 190631

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Trapkus, 2022 IL App (3d) 190631. Petitioner-Appellee: Janelle Trapkus. Respondent-Appellant: Christopher Trapkus.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying respondent’s petition to modify parenting time (statutory standard under 750 ILCS 5/610.5).
2. Whether the court properly modified post-dissolution rules: (a) the Three‑Appointment Rule requiring the custodial parent to provide three dates for children’s medical appointments; (b) the “10‑foot Rule” requiring the parties to remain 10 feet apart at activities; and (c) the injunction prohibiting the custodial parent from entering the noncustodial parent’s property.
3. Notice/due‑process limits on altering orders that implicate a third party (the nonparty girlfriend who had been subject to the 10‑foot restriction).

- Holding / outcome (concise)
The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It affirmed the trial court’s denial of Chris’s request to modify parenting time and affirmed elimination of the Three‑Appointment Rule and the injunction barring Janelle from entering Chris’s property. The court reversed the trial court’s elimination of the 10‑foot Rule (as altered by the trial court) based on procedural/due‑process and/or substantive error (see reasoning).

- Significant legal reasoning (essentials)
- Standard of review: de novo for statutory construction; clear‑error/abuse‑of‑discretion for discretionary parenting decisions. The appellate court emphasized that modification petitions must be analyzed under the Act’s plain language and appropriate subsection of section 610.5.
- Parenting time: the court found no substantial change in circumstances (and no alternative statutory basis to modify), and it gave deference to the trial court’s factual findings and best‑interest analysis in denying increased time to the father.
- Three‑Appointment Rule: trial court did not abuse discretion in concluding the rule was overly burdensome to the custodial parent and medical providers and reallocating scheduling responsibility to the custodial parent in the children’s best interest.
- 10‑foot Rule: the appellate court identified procedural problems (insufficient notice to a nonparty who had been subject to the restriction) and/or insufficient justification to remove a conflict‑reducing restriction without adequate findings; accordingly the trial court’s handling of that rule was reversed in part.
- Property‑entry injunction: trial court permissibly lifted the ban where facts supported normalization of drop‑offs and safety/utility concerns.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Choose and plead the correct statutory subsection when seeking modification (carefully address the 2‑year bar in 610.5(a) and the required showing).
- When seeking to add, modify, or remove behavioral restraints (e.g., stay‑away/10‑foot rules) that affect nonparties, ensure those nonparties receive notice or are properly joined, and produce specific evidentiary findings supporting the restriction or its removal.
- For administrative/appointment rules, courts will balance parental convenience and provider burden; present concrete evidence of administrative hardship if defending or seeking to remove such rules.
- Preserve factual findings on best interests and substantial‑change issues; trial courts’ discretionary findings receive appellate deference, so build the factual record accordingly.