In re Parentage of B.A.W., 2021 IL App (4th) 200536-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of B.A.W., No. 4‑20‑0536, 2021 IL App (4th) 200536‑U (Oct. 8, 2021) (Rule 23 order, non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Sarah Z. (mother). Respondent: Chris W. Third‑Party Petitioner‑Appellee: Nicki W. (stepmother).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying mother’s motion for attorney fees and costs under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137(a) and section 508(b) of the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act after the court granted a directed finding in mother’s favor on a nonparent visitation petition.
- Whether the nonparent’s verified petition and pursuit of the petition were frivolous or filed/maintained for an improper purpose (harassment, unnecessary delay, increasing litigation costs).

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees and costs under Rule 137(a) or §508(b).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Rule 137(a) authorizes sanctions where a filing is not well grounded in fact, lacks legal support or good‑faith argument for change in law, or is interposed for an improper purpose. Section 508(b) requires allocation of fees if a hearing was precipitated/conducted for an improper purpose.
- The court emphasized that a failure to make a prima facie showing at trial (resulting in a directed finding) does not automatically prove the pleading was frivolous or filed for an improper purpose. The absence of evidence at hearing does not retroactively establish lack of a factual or legal basis at filing.
- The trial court reviewed the petition, the hearing record, and briefing, and found the stepmother acted in good faith. Appellant’s additional arguments on appeal (e.g., early filing or expedited hearing) did not show improper purpose. Under abuse‑of‑discretion review, no reasonable person would have reached a different result.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- A directed finding against a litigant does not by itself justify Rule 137 or §508(b) sanctions. Courts will examine the state of knowledge and reasonableness at filing, not just the hearing outcome.
- Preserve sanction evidence below: show contemporaneous facts or investigation proving lack of any factual or legal basis or improper motive. Challenge sanctions under the abuse‑of‑discretion standard.
- In nonparent visitation cases, timing and scheduling alone are insufficient to prove bad faith.
- Note: this is an unpublished Rule 23 decision — persuasive but not binding precedent.