In re Marriage of White, 2022 IL App (3d) 200543-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of White, 2022 IL App (3d) 200543‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Feb. 1, 2022) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: Eli White. Respondent‑Appellant: Sarah N. White. Child: C.W.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying respondent’s motion in limine to exclude testimony from the guardian ad litem (GAL) and the parenting coordinator on the ground that communications with the child’s therapist were protected by the counseling confidentiality provision, 750 ILCS 5/607.6(d).
2) Whether the trial court’s permanent modification of the parenting time/allocation of parental responsibilities was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. (1) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion in limine (finding waiver via agreed orders). (2) The custody modification was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; custody modifications reviewed for manifest weight of the evidence.
- The court emphasized that the parties entered multiple agreed orders expressly authorizing the GAL and coparenting therapist (later parenting coordinator) to access the child’s therapist and records, to communicate with each other, and stating the parenting coordinator could be called to testify. Those consensual orders waived the confidentiality challenge.
- The appellate court rejected respondent’s contention that section 607.6(d)’s blanket confidentiality could not be waived; the record showed parties knowingly agreed to disclosures and to the coordinator’s role as witness.
- On the merits of custody, the court credited testimony from the GAL, parenting coordinator, and therapists that frequent transitions under the prior plan harmed the child and that a 2‑2‑5/alternating weekend schedule (and removal of the right of first refusal) would reduce transitions and better serve the child’s best interests. The trial court’s credibility determinations and reliance on therapist/GAL evaluations were not disturbed.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Agreed orders authorizing information sharing or conversion of therapeutic roles can effectively waive statutory confidentiality — draft consent language carefully and explicitly preserve objections if intended.
- Distinguish roles: coparenting therapist vs. parenting coordinator; obtain informed consent if role will change and testimony may be sought.
- When defending custody modifications, focus on demonstrable best‑interest factors (stability, number of transitions, therapist/GAL evaluations). Preserve objections and request limiting or sealing orders if confidentiality must be maintained.