In re Marriage of Vega, 2024 IL App (2d) 230177-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Vega, 2024 IL App (2d) 230177-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Jan. 11, 2024) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner-Appellee: Jose Vega. Respondent‑Appellant: Ana L. Lopez.

2) Key legal issues
- Jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders that altered parenting time (Sept. 2020 and Aug. 2022 orders).
- Preservation/procedural default of challenge to petitioner’s Feb. 28, 2020 petition to modify (motion to strike).
- Whether the trial court’s May 19, 2023 allocation/modification (best‑interests finding) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the trial court violated Illinois Supreme Court rules or respondent’s due process rights by its case-management orders (filings barred without permission, substitution-of‑judge skirmish, limitations on pleadings).

3) Holding / outcome
- Interlocutory appeals of the Sept. 2020 and Aug. 2022 orders dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Challenge to the Feb. 28, 2020 motion to strike held procedurally defaulted.
- On the merits, the May 19, 2023 order modifying allocation of parental responsibilities was affirmed: the best‑interests decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and did not violate due process.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction: Appellate court dismissed portions of the appeal where no final order was identified or the notice did not specify an appealable order (reinforcing limits on interlocutory appeals).
- Procedural default: The court refused to consider the motion‑to‑strike challenge because it was not properly preserved/raised on appeal (court applied forfeiture rules).
- Best interests: Applying section 602.5 of the IMDMA, the trial court’s ruling was supported by evidence including a founded DCFS investigation that led to removal of the children from respondent’s custody, the guardian ad litem’s investigation/recommendation, and observable stability considerations. The court found good cause to alter parenting allocation and no prejudice shown from not resolving certain interim proceedings earlier.
- Due process/case management: The trial court’s administrative controls (restricting filings absent permission, striking filings) and docket management did not amount to unconstitutional deprivation of process given the record and lack of demonstrated prejudice.

5) Practice implications
- Preserve issues: identify final orders or obtain leave before appealing interlocutory rulings; properly specify appealed orders in the notice of appeal. Failure to preserve or to brief issues invites dismissal/forfeiture.
- Develop the record on prejudice: where courts curtail filings or delay resolution, demonstrate concrete prejudice below and in the record to succeed on due process claims.
- DCFS findings and GAL testimony matter: founded child‑welfare findings and a well‑supported GAL recommendation can be dispositive in best‑interests battles—anticipate and rebut with specific, admissible evidence.
- Case management: trial judges have broad authority to control filings and manage complex family dockets; counsel should seek relief below (and preserve error) rather than rely on appellate review of interlocutory managerial orders.