In re Marriage of d'Escoto, 2021 IL App (1st) 210139-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of d’Escoto, 2021 IL App (1st) 210139-U. Petitioner–Appellee: Rodrigo d’Escoto. Respondent–Appellant: Jeannine Imbrenda. (Order filed Sept. 24, 2021 under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23.)

- Key legal issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion or issued findings against the manifest weight of the evidence when it modified an Allocation Judgment and Agreed Parenting Plan to change parenting time and allocation of parental decision‑making (education, medical, extracurriculars) under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court’s January 8, 2021 order modifying portions of the Allocation Judgment (including granting Rodrigo sole responsibility for major educational decisions and reallocating parenting time) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court reviewed the trial court’s factual findings for manifest-weight/deference, noting trial courts have broad discretion in allocation/parenting disputes and in determining children’s best interests. The record contained substantial evidence of high conflict and dysfunctional co‑parenting: repeated post‑decree litigation, unilateral decision‑making (e.g., enrollment in tackle football), interference with communication and parenting time, parental disparagement, and divergent parenting philosophies. The guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended abandoning equal time and recommended therapeutic interventions; a Section 604.10(b) evaluator was appointed; the trial court had previously ordered therapy and appointed a parenting coach/coordinator. Although the appellant argued the court disregarded the GAL and evaluator, the appellate court found the trial court’s resolution of competing evidence and credibility determinations were within its discretion and supported by the record.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Trial courts will defer to their credibility determinations and may modify allocation/parenting arrangements when chronic, high‑conflict co‑parenting or interference threatens children’s welfare.
- GAL reports and 604.10(b) evaluations are influential but not dispositive; courts may weigh them against other evidence.
- Counsel should develop a concrete record of specific post‑decree conduct (communications, interference, unilateral medical/educational acts, therapy noncompliance) to justify modification.
- Early use of GALs, evaluators, parenting coordinators, and court‑ordered therapy can shape the court’s view and remedial orders.
- Appeals challenging discretionary parenting decisions face a difficult manifest‑weight standard.