In re Parentage of D.R.B., 2023 IL App (1st) 221074-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Parentage of D.R.B., No. 1-22-1074, 2023 IL App (1st) 221074-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., June 31, 2023) (Rule 23 order — nonprecedential). Petitioner-Appellant: Daniel B.; Respondent-Appellee: Kristie K.; minor: D.R.B.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in modifying the parties’ 2017 allocation/parenting plan without (a) expressly finding a substantial change in circumstances and (b) determining the modification was in the child’s best interest.
2. Whether ordering the father to undergo court-ordered counseling was an impermissible restriction on parental decision‑making that required a finding of serious endangerment.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding one year of retroactive child support after years of reserving support.
4. Whether the court exceeded its authority under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) by awarding attorney fees beyond the limited filings the order referenced.

- Holding/outcome
The First District affirmed. The appellate court upheld (1) the modification awarding the mother the majority of parenting time, (2) the court-ordered counseling for petitioner, (3) the one‑year retroactive child support award, and (4) the section 508(b) attorney‑fee award.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Substantial change/best interest: The court found ample evidentiary support for changed circumstances since the 2017 allocation (entered when the child was under two), rooted in a long, acrimonious history of litigation and repeated incidents (allegations of physical altercations, alcohol problems, emergency petitions, DCFS involvement, multiple temporary orders and modifications). Those events provided a factual basis for modifying parenting time under the IMDMA.
- Counseling: The appellate court held that ordering parental counseling did not constitute a truncation of the father’s decision‑making authority requiring a separate finding of “serious endangerment.” Counseling was treated as remedial, aimed at improving parenting and the parent–child relationship, and within the court’s authority in parenting allocation matters.
- Retroactive support and fees: The trial court’s awards were reviewed for abuse of discretion. Given the procedural history (parties repeatedly reserving support, shifting custody/visitation, voluminous filings), the appellate court found the trial court’s retroactive support and fee determinations supported by the record and not an abuse of discretion.

- Practice implications (brief)
- When seeking modification, build a clear record of changed circumstances post‑judgment — especially where the original order was entered when a child was very young.
- Courts may order remedial measures (e.g., counseling) without a threshold finding of serious endangerment so long as they do not effectively strip core parental decision‑making. Frame counseling requests as therapeutic/remedial.
- Retroactive support remains available; preserve and document financial positions and parenting-time history.
- Fee requests under 508(b) will be reviewed deferentially; clearly identify the filings and time for which fees are sought and preserve objections to scope on the record.

Note: This is a Rule 23 (nonprecedential) appellate order.