In re Marriage of Trend, 2023 IL App (3d) 230012-U

In re Marriage of Trend, 2023 IL App (3d) 230012-U (Ill. App. Ct. Aug. 8, 2023) (Rule 23 — nonprecedential)

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Angela D. Trend (Petitioner‑Appellant) and Jeffrey Trend (Respondent‑Appellee), 2023 IL App (3d) 230012‑U.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether an agreed interim visitation order (Feb. 4, 2022) effected a reallocation of parental decision‑making (legal custody) to the father.
- Whether the trial court properly treated the agreed order as changing custody and relied on that change in later child‑support proceedings.
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the support order and denial of mother’s requests for children’s mental‑health records.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court vacated the trial court’s oral/order allocation of sole decision‑making to the father and remanded for further proceedings. The court concluded the agreed visitation order did not reallocate legal decision‑making. The mother’s visitation challenge was rejected as meritless. The appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction to review (and therefore did not resolve) the later child‑support order and the trial court’s denial of the mother’s requests for access to the children’s medical/therapy records.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The MSA/judgment initially provided joint legal custody and designated Angela as the primary residential parent. The April 2021 emergency order of protection granted physical care to Jeffrey and suspended Angela’s parenting time, and a later Feb. 4, 2022 agreed order restored limited supervised visitation. The agreed order expressly addressed visitation and did not purport to change legal custody or decision‑making.
- The appellate court emphasized that an order concerning visitation alone does not, without more, alter allocation of parental responsibilities (legal custody). The trial court’s subsequent oral statements and rulings treating the agreed visitation order as reassigning decision‑making exceeded the scope of the parties’ agreement and the court’s proper interpretation of that order.
- Procedurally, the court noted the absence of an evidentiary motion/record addressing reallocation of parental responsibilities and that the trial court relied on informal/oral characterizations. That procedural deficiency required vacatur and remand.

5) Practice implications
- When entering agreed orders, explicitly state whether parental responsibilities (legal custody/decision‑making) are being modified; ambiguous language will be strictly construed.
- Parties and counsel should file and litigate a formal motion to modify parental responsibilities (with evidentiary support) if a custody reallocation is sought — oral pronouncements or interim visitation agreements are insufficient.
- Preserve the record: attend hearings and oppose unsupported in‑camera or ex parte changes; objections and written motions are critical to appellate review.
- Be mindful of jurisdictional limits when attempting to appeal interlocutory or nonfinal orders (and when challenging support calculations tied to disputed custody factual findings).
- Confidential mental‑health records require appropriate statutory procedure (Confidentiality Act) and a proper evidentiary record to obtain access.