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.

There were no reported opinions this month.  Below is a selection of Rule 23 Orders issued by the Appellate Court.

Appointment of a SCR 215 psychological evaluation and indefinite suspension of parenting time upheld.  In a contentious dissolution of marriage proceeding involving contested parenting issues of three minor children, the trial court ordered respondent to undergo a Rule 215 psychological examination to which respondent, self-represented, refused to engage in throughout the proceedings. Throughout the case respondent alleged a widespread conspiracy among the court, the GAL, evaluators, and school officials to conceal abuse by petitioner. His accusations included inflammatory emails and conduct to school staff, maintaining a public website enumerating his accusations, attaching inappropriate photos of a child to pleadings, among other things. Repeated investigations by a multitude of state and regulatory agencies (including DCFS) found his abuse claims unfounded. After he continued to refuse to cooperate with court-ordered psychological evaluations, the trial court found his conduct seriously endangered the children and suspended his parenting time pending completion of the Rule 215 examination. The Appellate Court affirmed holding that the respondent’s mental condition was clearly “in controversy,” that the Rule 215 order complied with all procedural requirements, and that indefinitely suspending parenting time until completion of the examination was a proper protective measure, not a punitive sanction.In re Marriage of Neal, 2025 IL App (3d) 250101-U.
In re Marriage of Neal

Trial court reversed for granting motion to dismiss petition to increase child support. Mother filed a petition to increase child support which the trial court dismissed. The language in the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) imputed mother’s income at $60,000 per year even though she was actually unemployed and receiving disability. Post-judgment she later alleged that her disability benefits were terminated and she was living on $2,800 per month in unemployment income. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the petition to increase support holding the trial court improperly addressed the merits of mother’s underlying case instead of evaluating the sufficiency of the petition filed. Mother’s allegations of a worsened financial condition since the entry of judgment stated a potential basis for modification under Section 510 of the IMDMA. In re Marriage of Ito, 2025 IL App (3d) 240641-U.
In re Marriage of Ito

Motion to set contribution to children’s expenses characterized as a motion to modify support. In a post-judgment matter, the trial court denied husband’s motion to modify support and granted mother’s motion to set child-related expenses.  The parties’ judgment which was entered after a contested trial ordered husband to pay child support, but did not apportion certain children’s expenses such as health insurance, medical, and educational expenses between the parties. The Appellate Court affirmed the denial of husband’s motion to modify child support since the evidence showed husband’s income had not necessarily decreased, his accountant’s testimony did not show otherwise, and husband’s testimony was not credible as to his income. The Court reversed the trial court’s order granting wife’s motion to set child-related expenses because the trial court did not treat it as a motion to modify child support pursuant to Section 510 of the IMDMA and wife did not prove that there was a substantial change of circumstances.However, in its opinion the Court vacated the portion of the order requiring husband to pay 65% of the children’s school expenses but upheld allocation of medical expenses.In re Marriage of Kinsella, 2025 IL App (3d) 240144-U.
In re Marriage of Kinsella

Trial court’s denial of motion to restrict parenting time upheld. In a contested post-judgment matter with several issues, the Appellate Court upheld the denial of mother’s request to restrict father’s parenting time finding no evidence that his past alcohol use or mental health issues “seriously endangered” the child.  At hearing, both the guardian ad litem and 604.10(c) evaluator testified father posed no risk to the child. The Court also upheld that father was not cohabiting with his girlfriend. However, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to impute income to father, who was voluntarily underemployed, and the Court remanded the case to the trial court for recalculation of maintenance. In re Marriage of Werhun, 2025 IL App (3d) 250201-U.
In re Marriage of Werhun