In re Marriage of Yazeji, 2022 IL App (3d) 190197-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Yazeji, 2022 IL App (3d) 190197‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. Oct. 5, 2022) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: May S. Yazeji (mother). Respondent‑Appellant: Bassam A. Assaf (father).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s custody determination (rejecting parental‑alienation as a basis to change custody) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to consider husband’s claim of dissipation of marital assets that occurred after the court’s stipulated date of marital breakdown.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the husband responsibility for a portion ($120,000) of the wife’s attorney fees without adequately considering her ability to pay.

3) Holding / outcome
- Appellate court affirmed the trial court’s custody findings — the trial court’s determination that parental alienation had not been proven was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The appellate court found error as to dissipation: the trial court erred by not considering the husband’s dissipation claim for conduct occurring after the court’s chosen breakdown date; remand for consideration.
- The appellate court held the attorney‑fee award was an abuse of discretion because the trial court did not properly consider the wife’s ability to pay; remand to revisit fee allocation.

4) Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Custody/alienation: the record included extensive evaluator and clinician testimony (court‑appointed evaluators, GAL, treating clinicians) and in‑camera child material. Clinicians (e.g., Sample, Witherspoon) either found evidence inconclusive or identified alternative explanations (prior findings of physical abuse to one child, routine parental conduct, secrecy after mother moved out) that could explain children’s alignment with mother. The court was entitled to credit that evidence; expert “instructional” testimony for alienation did not require reversal where the factfinder’s contrary inferences were supported.
- Dissipation: the appellate court emphasized that claims of dissipation must be considered where asset depletion occurs after the marriage’s breakdown date relied upon by the trial court; exclusion of such proof was erroneous and requires remand to evaluate whether post‑breakdown spending constitutes dissipation affecting equitable distribution.
- Attorney fees: under IMDMA standards, a fee‑sharing order must consider the recipient spouse’s ability to pay; here the trial court failed to make necessary findings, warranting remand.

5) Practice implications (for attorneys)
- Preserve and clearly date dissipation claims; present contemporaneous accounting and tie expenditures to the relevant breakdown period.
- When asserting parental alienation, obtain a forensic evaluation (not only instructional expert testimony) and develop evidence that distinguishes alienation from legitimate parental complaints or prior abuse. Court‑appointed evaluators, in‑camera child interviews, and the GAL’s findings carry substantial weight.
- When seeking or opposing fee awards, ensure the record contains findings and financial proofs addressing the recipient’s ability to pay; trial courts must articulate that analysis on the record.
- Note: Rule 23 disposition — persuasive but nonprecedential; apply reasoning cautiously.