IICLE Family Law Flash Points - January 2024

Restriction of Parenting Time with Three Minor Children Upheld and Sanctions Granted by Appellate Court for Frivolous Appeal

In In re Marriage of Lindell, 2023 IL App (2d) 220055, the mother appealed the final parental allocation judgment that restricted her parenting time with three minor children by requiring supervised visitation. Both the guardian ad litem and the custody evaluator supported that conclusion through extensive testimony. The evidence showed the mother had long-standing issues of anxiety, an eating disorder, postpartum depression, and possible ADHD, which she attempted to manage with alcohol, opiates, sleeping medications, and other medications at various times. The trial court found that the evidence showed that she had misused or abused such substances and granted the father sole decision-making and parenting time. The court further found that the mother had engaged in conduct that rose to the level of serious endangerment and that it was in the children’s best interests that her parenting time be supervised. The mother filed a motion to reconsider and her notice of appeal. She contended on appeal that there was insufficient reliable evidence to support a serious endangerment finding. The mother provided no transcript of the trial or any of the exhibits the trial court referenced in its opinion, delayed several times in providing a complete record when directed to do so by the appellate court, and, even after the court reinstated her appeal, did not supplement the record with a transcript she had previously alleged was unavailable. The court affirmed the allocation judgment. The court also granted the father’s motion for sanctions, finding that the mother unduly delayed the appeal by ignoring the appellate court’s request for an explanation of the missing transcript, which she said was “essential” to her appeal, and concluded the only point in bringing the appeal was to cause unnecessary delay. 2023 IL App (2d) 220055 at ¶26.The court further stated the appeal would not have been brought in good faith by a reasonable attorney and that sanctions must be levied against the wife’s attorney. It therefore ordered the father’s counsel to file a statement of reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees and the wife’s attorney to file a response, both of which it would consider in entering an order determining the amount of sanctions.

Order Requiring Father To Use Soberlink To Secure Parenting Time Affirmed

In In re Marriage of Hipes, 2023 IL App (1st) 230953, the husband appealed the trial court’s order requiring him to test regularly with Soberlink in order to continue to have parenting time with the parties’ 12-year-old daughter. The record was replete with ample evidence of the father’s alcohol abuse, including multiple DUIs, his voluntary surrender of his driver’s license because he removed the ignition interlock device on his car, his multiple stints in inpatient rehab and detox programs, physical altercations with the wife, and multiple reconciliations and separations from the wife that coincided with periods of relapse. During the pendency of the proceedings, the husband tested with the BACtrack device, which the court found was unreliable because it did not provide real-time results or the videos of the husband taking the tests. Therefore, the trial court ordered Level 2 Soberlink testing with specific times the husband must test, as well as alcohol counseling, both of which the husband appealed. The appellate court affirmed, stating that the trial court’s finding of serious endangerment, which was necessary to order the restrictions on parenting time such as Soberlink, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence given the breadth of evidence in the record. The husband’s claim that he had been sober since 2020 was not supported by the evidence, and it was clear that his drinking caused mental and emotional harm to the parties’ daughter. The order specifically requiring him to use Soberlink and attend counseling was not an abuse of discretion as the restrictions were tailored to address the issues in the case and fell squarely withing the authorized restrictions of IMDMA §§603.10(a)(5) and 603.10(a)(8).