In re Parentage of K.E., 2022 IL App (5th) 210236

In re Parentage of K.E., 2022 IL App (5th) 210236

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of K.E., 2022 IL App (5th) 210236 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., Jan. 14, 2022).
- Nathan W. (petitioner/appellee) v. Lindsay E. (respondent/appellant).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allocating equal parenting time and joint decision-making to the parties in light of the child’s demonstrated fear of the father and related factual record.
- Whether the trial court erred by admitting/excluding and relying on an ex parte evidentiary deposition/report of a court-appointed mental‑health expert who died before being cross‑examined, in light of section 604.10 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act and due process considerations.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded with directions. The court found error in the trial proceedings (primarily procedural/evidentiary) that required reconsideration.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court emphasized the procedural protections inherent in the statutory scheme for court‑appointed experts (section 604.10), including the parties’ opportunity to test and cross‑examine expert opinions. Introducing an ex parte expert deposition/report when the expert is unavailable for cross‑examination undermines those protections and may improperly skew the factfinder’s assessment of contested custody/parenting issues.
- The appellate opinion also scrutinized the sufficiency of the evidentiary basis for awarding equal parenting time and joint decision‑making given the record of the child’s fear, allegations of past physical discipline, and the limited ability to test the deceased expert’s conclusions. A best‑interest determination requires fact‑specific findings and fair adversarial testing of expert evidence; reliance on untested ex parte expert material is reversible error.
- Because the expert who authored key evaluative material (and whose conclusions influenced the trial court’s parenting plan) was unavailable for cross‑examination, the appellate court determined the trial court erred in admitting/crediting that material in the manner it did and therefore could not sustain the custody allocation.

5) Practice implications
- Preserve the right to confront and cross‑examine court‑appointed experts under section 604.10; object to admission of ex parte reports/depositions when the expert is unavailable and seek continuance or appointment of a replacement expert.
- When seeking (or opposing) equal parenting time/joint decision‑making, develop a robust record on statutory best‑interest factors and obtain live expert testimony where the expert’s conclusions will materially affect the custody outcome.
- Use guardians ad litem and forensic evaluators proactively when allegations of abuse, fear, or parenting‑capacity concerns exist; ensure trial courts make explicit best‑interest findings grounded in admissible, tested evidence.