In re Marriage of Turner

Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 10/21/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary: <h3>Case</h3> <strong>In re Marriage of Alexander Turner and Lyndsey Turner</strong> <h3>Citation & Court</h3> <strong>2025 IL App (3d) 250246‑U</strong>, Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District ...

Full Case Summary

Case

In re Marriage of Alexander Turner and Lyndsey Turner

Citation & Court

2025 IL App (3d) 250246‑U, Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District — order filed October 8, 2025 (Supreme Court Rule 23 — non‑precedential).

Panel & Procedural Posture

Presiding Justice Brennan, with Justices Holdridge and Anderson concurring. Appeal from Du Page County Circuit Court (18th Judicial Circuit), Case No. 21‑D‑254 (Judge Neal W. Cerne). Appellant: Alexander Turner; Appellee: Lyndsey Turner. The court affirmed the trial court’s order denying Alex’s petition to modify allocation of parenting time and decision‑making.

Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in (1) denying Alex’s petition to modify parenting time and decision‑making authority, (2) making best‑interest findings, and (3) in certain evidentiary rulings (exclusion of Group Exhibit 7 and admission of expert testimony).

Family & Procedural Background

Married 2016; children N.T. (b. ~2015) and D.T. (b. ~2018). Dissolution petition filed Feb. 9, 2021; guardian ad litem (GAL) Chuck Roberts appointed. Allocation judgment entered Sept. 6, 2022: Lyndsey awarded sole decision‑making for education, health, religion, and extracurriculars (with duty to consult Alex); Lyndsey received majority parenting time (detailed school‑year and summer schedules); children to attend Wheaton Catholic school through eighth grade. Parties later executed a marital settlement incorporated into the dissolution judgment (Mar. 14, 2023).

Allocation Evaluation & Expert Evidence

- Court‑appointed evaluator Dr. Roger Hatcher conducted interviews, observations, collateral contacts, and testing (MMPI‑2, MCMI‑III). He concluded Alex exhibited long‑standing narcissistic patterns and reported that Alex met criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD); recommended Lyndsey receive sole decision‑making and majority parenting time. - Dr. Robert Shapiro (retained by Alex) reviewed Hatcher’s work, interviewed Alex once, found narcissistic traits but disputed a formal NPD diagnosis from the available data; he opposed curtailing Alex’s parenting time and proposed expanded weekend time, but he also recommended Lyndsey have sole decision‑making. - In modification proceedings, Lyndsey offered Dr. Mark Goldstein (not court‑appointed). Goldstein, who interviewed only Lyndsey and reviewed prior materials, testified Alex displayed narcissistic traits and recommended the children not reside with Alex daily and that public schooling was appropriate. The trial court explicitly declined to treat Hatcher’s formal NPD diagnosis as controlling for allocation, but noted Alex exhibited significant narcissistic traits and had not pursued treatment.

Modification Proceedings (Post‑Judgment)

Alex filed a two‑count petition (May 29, 2024) seeking modification of parenting time and decision‑making (asserting substantial change due to academic declines, logistical/transportation burdens after his move to St. Charles, and Lyndsey’s alleged inflexibility). Lyndsey filed a cross‑petition alleging Alex missed parenting time on numerous occasions. The GAL re‑interviewed parties, obtained a Jan. 30, 2025 school letter documenting academic concerns for D.T. (and monitoring for N.T.), and recommended keeping the allocation and parenting schedule largely unchanged while moving the children to the public school system for additional supports.

Trial Court Rulings & Findings

- The court found the children’s academic issues were a change in circumstances but concluded modification of allocation or parenting time was not necessary to serve the children’s best interests. - The court credited evidence that Lyndsey had acted appropriately (tutors, nightly help, school contact) and that Alex had not embraced prior mental‑health findings or sought treatment for his narcissistic traits. The court also found Alex’s move to St. Charles and requests to change extracurricular/geographic provisions were self‑motivated and insufficient to justify modification. - The court rejected Alex’s request to reallocate decision‑making (procedurally noting 750 ILCS 5/610.5(a) limits modification of decision‑making within two years absent stipulated or court‑found serious endangerment) and denied his petition to modify parenting time.

Evidentiary Rulings

- Group Exhibit 7 (written communications between the parties) was excluded sua sponte as irrelevant or cumulative; the court concluded the allocation judgment did not require make‑up time and that admission would not materially affect the outcome. The appellate court held exclusion, even if erroneous, was not substantially prejudicial given the other evidence. - Alex challenged admission of Goldstein’s testimony; the appellate court found no demonstrable prejudice because the trial court did not rely on Goldstein’s opinions and instead relied on existing allocation findings and the record.

Standards Applied on Appeal

The appellate court reviewed evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and factual findings for manifest weight of the evidence (and modification decisions for abuse of discretion), declining to reweigh credibility where the record provided a reasonable basis for the trial court’s conclusions.

Holding

Affirmed. The appellate court concluded the trial court’s best‑interest findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, the denial of Alex’s modification petition was not an abuse of discretion, and any evidentiary rulings did not substantially prejudice Alex.

Disposition

The Du Page County circuit court’s order denying modification of parenting time and decision‑making was affirmed.

Download PDF Opinion Ask AI About This Case

Ask AI About This Case

Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Turner? Ask our AI assistant below.