In re Marriage of Valus, 2023 IL App (3d) 220247‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Thomas L. Valus and Elena Valus (n/k/a Elena Lyons), No. 3‑22‑0247, Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., Order filed May 9, 2023 (Rule 23; non‑precedential).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in modifying the allocation judgment to require that the parties’ minor children receive school‑required vaccinations.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying respondent’s motion for a directed finding at the close of petitioner’s case‑in‑chief.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting and relying on certain testimony (including the guardian ad litem’s) and by denying a rehearing request.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not err in granting the modification, denying the directed finding, or denying the rehearing portion of the motion to reconsider.

4) Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- Facts: parties’ December 2017 allocation judgment required consultation on major decisions (education, health, religion) and designated the father’s residence for school enrollment. Father sought modification to require school‑required vaccinations; mother asserted religious objections and argued the parties must agree under the allocation judgment. Evidence showed the daughter had previously received vaccinations; the son had only newborn doses. Guardian ad litem (GAL) testified he reviewed Bible passages and medical literature (AMA, Pediatrics) and concluded vaccinations were in the children’s best interests; he had no formal medical training. Mother testified to religious objections (citing Leviticus and concerns about fetal‑cell origins). Mother presented no additional evidence.
- Directed finding: the appellate court agreed the trial court properly found a prima facie case existed from the evidence (GAL testimony and parents’ admissions) and thus denial of a directed finding was not error.
- Modification and admission of testimony: the trial court applied its discretion to weigh credibility and best‑interests considerations, noting (i) prior vaccinations and pediatric care, (ii) absence of an allocation provision prohibiting vaccinations, (iii) unresolved dispute after mediation, and (iv) GAL’s conclusion supporting vaccination. The appellate court found no abuse in admitting or relying on the GAL’s testimony despite his lack of medical credentials.

5) Practice implications (for family lawyers)
- Courts will modify allocation terms to require vaccinations when evidence supports the children’s best interests; allocation language that merely requires consultation may not block such modifications.
- GAL reports and testimony—particularly where they reference credible medical literature or longstanding pediatric care—can be highly persuasive even absent formal medical credentials. Consider engaging or subpoenaing a pediatrician or medical expert to strengthen or rebut medical claims.
- Preserve evidentiary objections and develop documentary proof (vaccination records, pediatrician records, expert affidavits). If seeking a directed finding, be prepared to show the movant met no prima facie burden.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 order (non‑precedential) but useful for persuasive guidance on how courts balance parental religious objections against public‑health and best‑interest findings.