In re Parentage of M.M., 2022 IL App (1st) 211144‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of M.M., No. 1‑21‑1144 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Div. May 11, 2022) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: M.M. (Father). Respondent‑Appellant: M.U. (Mother). Child born out of wedlock; both parents Chicago Police Department officers.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s detailed modification of the prior allocation/parenting‑time order (to address employer schedules, “time‑trumping,” extracurriculars, right of first refusal, childcare obligations, and communications) was against the manifest weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion.
- Whether portions of the modification (the right of first refusal wording and denial of injunctive relief regarding noncriminal police reports) were sufficiently definite.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
- The court’s substantive modifications to allocation of parental responsibility and parenting time were affirmed (not against manifest weight / not an abuse of discretion).
- The portion granting a right of first refusal was vacated and remanded for clarification of the temporal window that triggers it.
- The portion denying injunctive relief (re: father’s filing noncriminal police reports) was vacated and remanded for clarification.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The appellate court applied the manifest‑weight/abuse‑of‑discretion standards to the trial court’s best‑interests/17‑factor analysis and found the trial court acted within its discretion. The GAL’s testimony that the parties were good parents but highly conflictual and rule‑oriented supported the trial court’s decision to adopt detailed, rule‑heavy modifications to reduce ambiguity and recurring disputes.
- The trial court’s denial of a rule to show cause on phone‑call violations turned on the vagueness of the prior order; the appellate court upheld that conclusion.
- The appellate court vacated the right‑of‑first‑refusal language because the trial court used an overly broad trigger (“if a parent is ever not available…”), creating uncertainty; remand was required to define the temporal scope (e.g., overnights, multi‑hour absences) that should trigger the right. Likewise, the injunction issue required clearer findings or limitations.

5) Practice implications (for family law practitioners)
- Draft allocation and parenting orders with precision when parties have nonstandard or rotating employer schedules (define “day‑off groups,” comp time, furloughs, and how conflicts are resolved).
- Define right‑of‑first‑refusal triggers explicitly (overnight vs. daytime, minimum duration) and set procedures for caretaker disclosure and cost allocation.
- Address who arranges/pays childcare if a parent is unavailable and who must transport to extracurriculars; include enforcement and communication protocols (e.g., use of parenting apps).
- When seeking injunctive relief (e.g., to restrain reports to law enforcement), obtain clear factual findings and narrowly tailored remedies to avoid remand.
- Where conflict is chronic, consider using a GAL to propose concrete, enforceable rules; appellate review will defer to trial court’s fact‑based judgments unless clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence.