IICLE Family Law Flash Points - June 2023

Factual Finding That Wife Was Unable To Work Due to Time and Effort Needed To Care for Severely Disabled Child Upheld

In In re Marriage of Stine, 2023 IL App (4th) 220519, the ex-husband appealed the trial court’s finding that his ex-wife was unable to work because of the intense and constant care their only daughter needed due to her severe disabilities. The evidence showed that the daughter suffered from cerebral palsy, epilepsy, seizures, paralytic scoliosis, severe anxiety, and depression, among other issues. The daughter experienced three to ten seizures per day, could not be left alone, and could not sleep alone. The evidence also showed that while she was eligible for in-home nursing care, there was a shortage of qualified care providers, and both parties agreed that she received better care at home from the ex-wife than she would at a government-subsidized home. The trial court awarded the ex-wife $776.92 per month in maintenance for seven years. Although the ex-husband argued that their daughter was eligible for in-home nursing care, which would allow the ex-wife to become employed, and as such the ex-wife’s unemployment was voluntary, the appellate court disagreed. The trial court’s finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when evaluating whether to impute income to the ex-wife when reviewing all of the statutory maintenance factors.

Absolute Litigation Privilege Barred Ex-Wife’s Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

In Goodman v. Goodman, 2023 IL App (2d) 220086, the ex-wife filed a lawsuit against her ex-husband for intentional infliction of emotional distress and other violations of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 (IDVA), 750 ILCS 60/101, et seq., upon discovering that he had hired private investigators to conduct surveillance on her for more than three years. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the ex-husband on the grounds that the actions were protected by the absolute litigation privilege. It was undisputed that the surveillance was in the course of, and in furtherance of, anticipated divorce proceedings. The evidence did not have to be used at trial in order to be pertinent to the proceedings but rather only needed to bear some relation to the litigation in order for the litigation privilege to apply. The appellate court held that the surveillance did bear some relation to the divorce proceedings and that the absolute litigation privilege barred the ex-wife’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the ex-husband.