In re Marriage of Webb, 2024 IL App (5th) 220686-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Webb, No. 5-22-0686, 2024 IL App (5th) 220686-U (Ill. App. Ct. Feb. 7, 2024) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellant: Lucas C. Webb; Respondent-Appellee: Kyla E. Webb.

- Key legal issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion or its decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence in denying, in part, petitioner’s petition to modify (1) allocation of significant parental decision-making authority and (2) parenting time so that the parties’ youngest child (Vera) would primarily reside with petitioner based on an alleged substantial change in circumstances.

- Holding/outcome
The Fifth District affirmed the trial court. The appellate court held the trial court’s denial of the requested modification as to the youngest child was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
The parties’ 2020 agreed allocation gave joint significant decision-making and majority parenting time to respondent, with petitioner’s residence designated primary for school registration. Petitioner later sought modification after two older children moved in with him alleging abuse by respondent’s boyfriend (including a bruising incident and an order of protection against the boyfriend). The court conducted in-camera interviews of the older children and heard testimony from teachers, parents, DCFS involvement was referenced, and conflicting accounts were presented about the alleged incident. Petitioner also had registered the youngest child for a new school without respondent’s consent. The appellate court emphasized that the record did not demonstrate the requisite substantial change as to the youngest child or that the trial court’s best‑interest evaluation was erroneous. The court noted the absence of dispositive findings (e.g., DCFS findings) and gave deference to the trial court’s fact‑finding role; the denial was not manifestly erroneous. The respondent did not file an appellee’s brief, but the record was simple enough for the court to decide on the merits.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- To obtain modification, link the “substantial change” specifically to the child at issue and present clear, admissible evidence (DCFS findings, medical/school records, witness testimony) showing effect on that child’s best interests.
- In-camera interviews and trial-court credibility determinations carry substantial weight on appeal.
- Registering a child in a new school without co‑parent consent under a joint decision-making order is risky and may factor negatively.
- Rule 23 orders are non‑precedential—useful guidance but not binding precedent.