In re Parentage of C.A.C., 2019 IL App (2d) 190098-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Parentage of C.A.C., 2019 IL App (2d) 190098-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., July 2, 2019) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellant: Robert G. Domino. Respondent-Appellee: Adelaide E. Carroll. (Appeal from Du Page County; Justice Spence.)

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding testimony from petitioner’s rebuttal witness (sequestration/order to exclude witnesses).
2) Whether the trial court’s allocation of the majority of parenting time and primary parental decision‑making to the mother was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. It held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the rebuttal witness’s testimony, and the parenting‑time and decision‑making allocations were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Witness exclusion: The parties jointly moved to exclude witnesses and the court ordered non-party witnesses to remain outside the courtroom. The court warned that violating the order could bar testimony. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in excluding testimony where the sequestration order had been violated or where the trial court reasonably exercised control over witness testimony. Trial courts have broad discretion to control witnesses and enforce sequestration rules.
- Parenting time / decision‑making: Allocation decisions were reviewed for abuse of discretion and for being against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility findings and fact weighing (including the guardian ad litem’s involvement and evidentiary record). The record showed respondent provided routine care, enrolled the child in activities, and there was a DCFS investigation resulting in “unfounded” findings; petitioner had intermittent contact, missed or was denied sessions, sought and later rescinded a VAP and later established paternity by genetics. The court reasonably found that awarding primary decision‑making and majority parenting time to the mother served the child’s best interests.

- Practice implications for counsel
- Strictly enforce and comply with sequestration orders: have witnesses wait outside; preserve objections and a record if exclusion is sought or contested. Violations risk exclusion of testimony.
- In parentage/parenting disputes, build a record on the statutory best‑interest factors (stability, routine care, history of involvement, missed visitations, GAL findings, documentation of denied/missed make‑up time). Trial court determinations on credibility and best interests receive high deference on appeal.
- DCFS findings alone are not dispositive; counsel should contextualize investigations and obtain supporting medical/educational documentation.
- Consider early use of a GAL and detailed contemporaneous evidence of parenting time compliance to counter claims of limited involvement.