Michelle A. Lawless
The Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC
161 N. Clark St. Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois
Telephone: (312) 741-1092
www.malfamilylaw.com; michelle@malfamilylaw.com.
The Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC
161 N. Clark St. Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois
Telephone: (312) 741-1092
www.malfamilylaw.com; michelle@malfamilylaw.com.
- Trial court’s post-judgment modification order granting overnight parenting time reversed. In a post-judgment action, the trial court modified the original parenting schedule which had imposed restrictions on husband’s parenting time. Husband had a series of significant medical issues, including a bipolar disorder diagnosis, debilitating pain, overwhelming fatigue, and a benign brain tumor. Wife also expressed concerns that husband was abusing drugs. The court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) issued a report stating she was concerned with husband’s “self-medicating” and that she believed husband’s many health issues prevented him from placing the child’s needs ahead of his own. The trial court entered a parenting agreement which reserved husband’s ability to have overnight parenting time, required him to have supervised parenting time, and imposed a number of conditions which had to be met before husband could file a petition to modify the restrictions on his parenting time. Husband subsequently filed a motion to lift the restrictions less than two years after the entry of judgment. At the hearing, the GAL testified that she saw no change in his behavior since she submitted her original report but that the child’s age warranted overnight parenting time, and recommended that parenting time remain supervised. The trial court entered an order granting overnight parenting time every other weekend even though it found that husband had not established a substantial change of circumstances warranting a modification. The court reasoned that it had the authority to modify the parenting time without a substantial change of circumstances if it is a minor modification pursuant to Section 610(e). Wife appealed and the Appellate Court reversed. The record was clear since the beginning of the case that husband had serious medical conditions which prevented him from having unsupervised parenting time, and there was insufficient evidence to establish the modification was in the child’s best interests. The trial court’s finding that it was in the child’s best interests to have overnight parenting time was manifestly erroneous as was its determination that the modification was a minor change pursuant to Section 610(e). In re Marriage of Royer,2025 IL App (2d) 240378.
In re Marriage of Royer - Mother was denied due process when her counsel was discharged without compliance with Supreme Court Rule 13.In a petition to terminate mother’s parental rights, the trial court allowed mother’s appointed counsel to withdraw upon mother’s default. Mother subsequently appealed after a hearing was held which resulted in the termination of her parental rights where neither she nor her counsel were present. The Appellate Court reversed. Under the Juvenile Court Act, parents subject to a proceeding to terminate parental rights are statutorily entitled to be represented by counsel. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 13 governs the withdrawal of counsel from a pending action. In this matter, absent from the record was a written motion to withdraw required by SCR 13(c)(3), notice of a Motion to Withdraw, or proof of service of an order discharging mother’s counsel to mother. The trial court erred when it discharged mother’s counsel without compliance with SCR 13 which led to a hearing where neither mother nor her counsel were present. This was a violation of mother’s due process rights. The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. In re R.H., 2024 IL App (4th) 241048.
In re R.H., a Minor