In re Parentage of Nathan W., 2023 IL App (5th) 230076-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of Nathan W., 2023 IL App (5th) 230076‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., filed Aug. 7, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Nathan W. (Father). Respondent/Appellant: Lindsay E. (Mother). Child: K.E.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s allocation of parental responsibilities and award of parenting time (equal parenting time with joint decision‑making) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the trial court erred in permitting a witness (Father’s wife, Lauren W.) to testify although witnesses had been ordered excluded from the courtroom (whether admission of her testimony was reversible error/prejudicial).
- Procedural background: the case had earlier been reversed and remanded for improper admission of an ex parte expert deposition under Ill. S. Ct. R. 206(a); the remand trial re‑examined custody/visitation.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s visitation/parental‑responsibility judgment (stating the visitation order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence) and rejected Mother’s claim of prejudice from allowing Lauren W. to testify. The judgment was affirmed as modified.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Manifest‑weight review: the court found adequate evidence supported the trial court’s factual findings and disposition — Father had previously exercised 50% parenting time post‑judgment, the child had positive interactions with Father and his household (testimony from Father, his friend, and Lauren), Father actively sought contact and had a parental bond, and the record did not establish the child was unsafe with Father. The trial court’s in‑camera interview and credibility determinations further supported its allocation of parenting time.
- Witness exclusion/prejudice: the court viewed the trial court’s handling as within its discretion. Initially both parties had represented that no expert would testify and Lauren remained; when Mother later indicated she intended to call an expert, the court excluded Lauren during the remainder of Father’s testimony and ultimately permitted her to testify. The appellate court required a showing of prejudice from the temporary presence of the witness and found none.
- Procedural note: the earlier reversal for noncompliance with Rule 206(a) was fixed on remand; this appeal did not recreate that ground.

5) Practice implications
- Strictly comply with Rule 206 and other expert‑disclosure rules; ex parte depositions and inadequate notice risk reversal.
- Counsel should promptly and precisely disclose trial witness lists and expert intentions; representations that witnesses “will not be called” can lead to temporary courtroom presence but change of strategy risks exclusion or appellate review for prejudice.
- Trial courts have latitude in managing witness exclusion; appeals will require a showing of prejudice, not merely procedural irregularity.
- Consider updated evaluations before retrial after long delays — stale expert reports weaken positions and invite remand.