In re Parentage of J.N., 2022 IL App (2d) 210562-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of J.N. and C.N., 2022 IL App (2d) 210562-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Feb. 16, 2022) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Ngochan Thi Doan. Respondent-Appellant: Huycuong Tam Nguyen.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a trial court may impose COVID-19-related conditions on a parent’s court-ordered parenting time (testing, masking, or vaccination proof) absent a properly pleaded motion or statutory basis.
- Whether imposing such conditions during a hearing on a different claim violated respondent’s due-process right to notice and an opportunity to defend.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court vacated the portion of the trial court’s order that imposed COVID-19 protocols (masking/testing/vaccination-or-test within 72 hours) on respondent’s parenting time because the manner of proceeding violated respondent’s due-process rights. The trial court’s other rulings (e.g., finding of visitation interference, make-up time, attorney fees) were not disturbed in the portion reviewed.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Procedural posture: Petitioner initially filed a standalone “motion for respondent to get Covid test,” which was dismissed without prejudice for failing to cite authority and plead sufficient facts; the court then proceeded with an evidentiary hearing on respondent’s separate petition for visitation interference. During that hearing the court—without a pending, properly pleaded request on COVID protocols and without giving respondent adequate opportunity to address vaccination/testing allegations—ordered COVID-related conditions.
- The appellate court concluded that imposing conditions that affect core parenting rights requires adequate notice and an opportunity to litigate the specific claims underpinning such restrictions. Although the trial court cited its authority to act in the children’s best interests (apparently under § 607.5(c)(9) of the IMDMA and generally), the court could not permissibly address a new, substantive restriction mid-hearing where the opposing parent had no fair opportunity to defend the factual and legal bases for the restriction. This violated due process.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- When seeking health-based restrictions on parenting time, plead a clear statutory basis (e.g., § 603.10 for conduct endangering a child or § 607.5 where change-in-circumstances is alleged) and include specific factual allegations; do not assume courts will address such issues sua sponte.
- If opposing a sudden or unpled request mid-hearing, promptly object, demand continuance, request written pleadings or a remand for proper notice, and preserve the record for appeal.
- Counsel should anticipate public-health evidence (vaccination status, testing, CDC/executive orders) and be prepared to litigate best-interest factors; consider moving for a GAL or evidentiary hearing focused solely on health protocols where warranted.
- Note: This Rule 23 decision is nonprecedential and should be cited accordingly.