In re Marriage of Wendy W., 2022 IL App (1st) 201000

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Wendy W., 2022 IL App (1st) 201000. Petitioner-Appellee: Wendy W.; Respondent-Appellant: James W.; Minor child represented by Stuart G. Gelfman.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether, in a section 603.10 parenting-time restriction proceeding (750 ILCS 5/603.10) involving a child’s mental health, a trial court may deny a parent discovery of the child’s mental-health medical/therapy records based on the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act (740 ILCS 110/1 et seq.) and the child’s objection.
2) Whether the same confidentiality grounds permit withholding therapeutic-school records and school records the parent otherwise is entitled to under a dissolution allocation judgment.
3) Whether a parent may be denied access to records that the child’s guardian ad litem/representative has reviewed.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court modified the certified questions and answered: yes — a trial court may deny access to the child’s mental-health medical/therapy records based on the Confidentiality Act and the child’s best interests, but subject to disclosure of limited clinical information (current physical/mental condition, diagnosis, treatment needs, services provided and services needed). No — nonprivileged, nonconfidential school records are not protectable on those grounds. The cause was remanded for further proceedings.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court found the certified questions overbroad and narrowed them to the specific statutory context (child aged 12–17, section 603.10). It held the Confidentiality Act and attendant patient–therapist privilege can bar disclosure of a minor’s mental-health records where the minor objects, especially for adolescents who can assert confidentiality interests. But that privilege is not absolute in parental-rights litigation; fairness and relevance require disclosure of limited, nonprivileged clinical information essential to the parenting-time restriction inquiry (diagnosis, current condition, treatment needs/services). By contrast, ordinary school records that are not privileged remain discoverable even if the allocation judgment grants parental access. The court also emphasized the need for tailored rulings and remanded for the trial court to fashion appropriate, limited disclosure (and implied in‑camera review/redaction as necessary).

- Practice implications for attorneys
- Expect courts to protect adolescent mental-health records under the Confidentiality Act, but to require narrow clinical disclosures relevant to parenting-time safety/fitness.
- When seeking records, plead narrowly, justify relevance, and request in‑camera review and specific categories of nonprivileged clinical information.
- When defending disclosure, invoke the Confidentiality Act and child objection; when opposing, argue materiality and seek limited compelled disclosure rather than wholesale access.
- Nonprivileged school records remain discoverable despite confidentiality claims—do not assume therapeutic‑school files are entirely protected.
- Coordinate with the child representative and prepare for remand procedures (tailored orders, redactions, and possible protective orders).