In re Marriage of Turner, 2023 IL App (3d) 220398-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Turner, 2023 IL App (3d) 220398-U (Order filed Mar. 3, 2023) (Sup. Ct. R. 23 — not for precedent).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Alexander (Alex) Turner. Respondent-Appellee: Lyndsey Turner. Du Page County circuit court; appeal from parenting allocation after four-day trial in dissolution proceeding.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of Alex’s May 2021 petition for a temporary parenting schedule.
- Admissibility and prejudice analysis for a court‑appointed evaluator’s (Dr. Hatcher) report and testimony.
- Whether the trial court erred in permitting the mother to elicit opinion testimony from the father’s retained expert (Dr. Shapiro) on cross‑examination.
- Whether the trial court’s allocation of decision‑making authority (mother as primary decision‑maker) and parenting time (majority to mother) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

3. Holding/outcome
- Judgment affirmed in all respects. Appellate court: no jurisdiction to review the temporary petition denial because that specific order was not identified in the notice of appeal; evidentiary rulings and parenting allocations affirmed.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction: An appellant must identify the order appealed in the notice of appeal; because Alex failed to identify the July 2021 order denying a hearing on his temporary petition, the court lacked jurisdiction to review it.
- Expert evidence: The trial court did not abuse discretion admitting the court‑appointed evaluator’s report; any claimed prejudice was negated because the trial court expressly disregarded portions it found unreliable. The court also did not err in permitting cross‑examination to elicit opinion testimony from the controlled expert beyond his report — the ruling fell within trial court’s discretion under the circumstances.
- Parenting allocation: The manifest‑weight standard governs credibility and fact determinations in custody disputes. The court credited the GAL and court evaluator who found significant parental conflict, Alex’s lack of cooperativeness and concerning personality traits (e.g., evaluator’s narcissistic personality disorder diagnosis), and that Lyndsey was more likely to place the children’s needs first. Those credibility findings and the resulting decision‑making and parenting time allocations were supported by the record and therefore not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

5. Practice implications
- Procedural: Identify every order being appealed in the notice of appeal to preserve jurisdiction.
- Experts: Challenges to court‑appointed evaluators require careful preservation; trial courts have broad discretion to admit/evaluate such reports and to discount portions. Controlled experts can be probed on cross‑examination; expect courts to permit development of testimony beyond written reports within discretion.
- Custody strategy: Trial courts defer to credibility findings and GAL/evaluator recommendations; extensive record demonstrating cooperation, parenting competence, and prioritization of children’s needs is critical when contesting primary decision‑making or parenting time.