In re Marriage of d'Escoto, 2021 IL App (1st) 200883-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of d’Escoto, 2021 IL App (1st) 200883-U (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Mar. 26, 2021) (Rule 23 order, non‑precedential). Petitioner/Counter‑Respondent/Appellee: Rodrigo d’Escoto. Respondent/Counter‑Petitioner/Appellant: Jeannine Imbrenda.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court erred in denying Jeannine’s emergency motion to compel enforcement/maintain the status quo after Rodrigo unilaterally enrolled the parties’ son at a different private school.
2) Whether the appeal remained justiciable after the trial court subsequently modified the allocation judgment to give Rodrigo sole authority for major educational decisions.

- Holding/outcome
Appeal dismissed as moot. The appellate court granted Rodrigo’s motion to dismiss because a January 8, 2021 trial‑court modification (giving Rodrigo sole responsibility for major educational decisions and removing the prior notice/collaboration provisions) made any relief from the earlier order impossible or ineffectual.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court applied Illinois mootness doctrine: an appeal is moot when subsequent events make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant effectual relief (citing In re Marriage of Peters‑Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287). Here, even if the appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the emergency motion (which had allowed Rodrigo to enroll the child at St. Helen’s), the later modification of the allocation judgment eliminated Jeannine’s procedural entitlement to prior notice/collaboration and expressly vested educational decision‑making solely in Rodrigo. Therefore reversal would not change the parties’ present rights or the child’s placement for the 2020–21 year. The panel noted prior procedural history: trial court denied emergency motion (Aug. 17, 2020); appellate stay granted (Aug. 21, 2020); later modification (Jan. 8, 2021) rendered appeal moot; Jeannine’s separate appeal of that modification was acknowledged.

- Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Time‑sensitive schooling disputes risk mootness if the underlying allocation is later modified; seek immediate injunctive relief and expedited appellate review where status quo is critical.
- When negotiating/drafting parenting plans, be specific about notice deadlines, dispute‑resolution processes, and limitations on unilateral changes to avoid post‑judgment modifications that can undo interim relief.
- Preserve record and seek temporary (or express) preservation of rights pending modification proceedings.
- Anticipate and prepare to oppose motions to dismiss appeals as moot after trial‑court modifications; if appealing a modification, raise all related issues in that appeal to avoid fragmentation.