In re Parentage of K.K., 2023 IL App (2d) 230235-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of K.K., 2023 IL App (2d) 230235‑U (Dec. 12, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Robert Sean Kidwell. Respondent‑Appellee: Brittany R. Bryant. (Minor: K.K.)

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court was required to hold a hearing and make the findings mandated by 750 ILCS 5/603.10(b) before modifying/suspending the father’s parenting time.
- Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard in ruling on petitioner’s motion for reconciliation (reunification) counseling under 750 ILCS 5/607.6.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court held the trial court erred in failing to hold the hearing required by section 603.10(b) before modifying the order that restricted father’s parenting time.
- The court also concluded the trial court applied the wrong standard when deciding the motion under section 607.6. The case was reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Procedural posture: father’s court‑ordered supervised/limited parenting time was effectively suspended after allegations and a DCFS inquiry (which DCFS found unfounded). A GAL was appointed and the parties agreed or were ordered into a drawn‑out reconciliation counseling process; father later sought a hearing or resumption of parenting time. At a hearing the trial court concluded father had “waived” his right to a hearing by agreeing to prior orders restricting time.
- The Second District rejected that approach: statutory protections in section 603.10(b) cannot be sidestepped by treating a restrictive agreement as a waiver of the required hearing and findings. The appellate court emphasized the statutory process and the need for an actual hearing and proper findings when parenting time is curtailed or suspended.
- On section 607.6 the court found the trial court applied an incorrect standard in evaluating the father’s request for reconciliation counseling (the opinion directs that the statutory standard must be applied and the matter reassessed under that framework).

5) Practice implications
- Counsel should insist on and preserve rights to the statutory hearing under 750 ILCS 5/603.10(b) whenever parenting time is curtailed — and obtain on‑the‑record findings rather than permitting indefinite suspension by agreement.
- When seeking or opposing reunification/reconciliation counseling under 750 ILCS 5/607.6, make the record on the statutory factors and the standard to be applied; challenge any misstatement of the governing test.
- Use precise orders specifying scope/duration of GAL investigation and counseling, require periodic status reports, and preserve objections to delays or non‑compliance for appeal.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 decision (limited precedential value) but instructive for procedure and statutory compliance in parenting‑time suspensions and reunification counseling disputes.