In re Marriage of Vermaaten, 2024 IL App (2d) 220351-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Vermaaten, 2024 IL App (2d) 220351-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Jan. 30, 2024). Petitioner-Appellee: Megan B. Vermaaten; Respondent-Appellant: Jacob A. Vermaaten.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the husband’s request to appoint an evaluator under 750 ILCS 5/604.10; and
2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the wife attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(b).

- Holding/outcome
The Second District affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the 604.10 evaluator request and properly awarded attorney fees to the wife under section 508(b).

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: both determinations (appointment of evaluators and fee awards) are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- 604.10 evaluator: The trial court denied the husband’s petition because appointing an evaluator was not in the children’s best interests. The court noted that the guardian ad litem (GAL)—who was appointed and had conducted an investigation—opposed appointment. The husband’s primary justification was strategic (to rebut the GAL) and relied on generalized, largely anecdotal allegations about the children’s development and behavior rather than a showing that further evaluation was necessary for the children’s welfare. The appellate court accepted the trial court’s conclusion that subjecting children to additional interviews and evaluations, when the GAL had investigated and opposed further intrusion, was not warranted.
- Attorney fees under 508(b): The trial court’s award was upheld as within its discretion. The record reflected contentious, repetitive litigation (including alleged willful noncompliance with the dissolution judgment concerning a retirement transfer and multiple filings), and a disparity in resources and need—factors supporting an award under section 508(b). The appellate court found no abuse in the fee determination.

- Practice implications for family-law practitioners
- Requests for court-appointed 604.10 evaluators should be supported by specific, contemporaneous evidence showing an evaluator is necessary for the children’s welfare, not merely litigation strategy or to rebut a GAL. Courts will defer to a GAL’s thorough investigation and resist additional intrusive evaluations absent strong justification.
- Fee petitions under 508(b) remain fact-sensitive: document opposing party’s bad faith, willful noncompliance, multiplicity of filings, and the client’s need/ability to pay. Trial courts have broad discretion; provide a clear record tying conduct and disparity of resources to the fee request.