Ramon v. Hendricks

2019 IL App (5th) 190018-U

JOSE RAMON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JENNIFER HENDRICKS, Respondent-Appellee.

NO. 5-19-0018

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

July 25, 2019

NOTICE

Decision filed 07/25/19. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Peti ion for Rehearing or the disposition of the same.

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison County.

No. 17-F-545

Honorable Maureen D. Schuette, Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE CHAPMAN delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Moore and Barberis concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Where there is no transcript of the trial court's hearing or bystander's report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 323 (Ill. S. Ct. R. 323 (eff. July 1, 2017)), the only available evidence consists of the pleadings, financial affidavits, and the report of the guardian ad litem (GAL). Where the GAL recommended that the mother, Jennifer Hendricks, be awarded sole parental decision-making responsibilities and that she be designated as the primary custodial parent subject to parenting time with the father, Jose Ramon, the trial court's determination that it was in the minor's best interests to make those awards is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and is affirmed. Where the trial court imputed income to the father in the amount that he earned in the year preceding the hearing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion and we affirm the child support order. Where there is no factual basis to disqualify the GAL and/or to discount the GAL's report, we deny the father's request and affirm the trial court's judgment.

¶ 2 Jose Ramon and Jennifer Hendricks had a daughter. At the end of the relationship, Jennifer moved out of Jose's home with their daughter. Jose sought court-ordered parenting time. Jose appeals from the trial court's order assigning significant decision-making responsibilities to Jennifer on matters of education, medical care, religion, and extracurricular activities; limiting his parenting time to alternate weekends, holidays, birthdays, and two nonconsecutive weeks in the summer; imputing his income to the level he earned in 2017 and basing child support on that amount after application of all required computational steps; and declining to disqualify the GAL and to bar consideration of the GAL's report at the hearing. For the reasons that follow in this order, we affirm.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Jose and Jennifer were in a personal relationship and during that relationship, they had one child. Their daughter, A.R., was born on July 2015. The couple never married. On August 30, 2017, Jennifer moved out of Jose's home and took A.R. She moved in with her parents in a nearby community.

¶ 5 On September 1, 2017, Jose filed his emergency petition to establish parenting time and to allocate parental responsibilities. In his petition, Jose stated that on August 30, 2017, A.R. slapped Jennifer's hand, which upset her. Jennifer then placed A.R. on a bed, A.R. fell off the bed striking her head, and A.R. was treated and released from an area emergency room. Upon return to their shared home, Jose questioned Jennifer about why she left A.R. unattended on the bed. Jennifer left with A.R. that evening and did not return.

¶ 6 On that same date, the trial court entered an emergency order prohibiting Jennifer from removing the child from Illinois.

¶ 7 On September 13, 2017, the trial court entered a temporary order providing Jose with parenting time on specific dates. Neither party was allowed to remove A.R. from Illinois or the metro-St. Louis area.

¶ 8 On September 26, 2017, Jose and Jennifer filed their temporary agreed parenting plan. They reserved the division of significant decision-making responsibilities. Jose and Jennifer agreed that while A.R. was enrolled in the Goddard School (daycare and preschool in Edwardsville), decision-making was to be equally shared with both parents being allowed to communicate with the school. A.R. was to attend the Goddard School full time with both Jose and Jennifer having the right to visit her during her lunch hour and to pick her up from school as early as 2 p.m. If A.R. was ill, the parent detecting the illness was required to immediately inform the other parent. Jose had parenting time from Monday to Wednesday. Jennifer had parenting time from Wednesday to Friday. The parties agreed to alternate weekends. Parenting time on Halloween, Columbus Day, and Veterans Day was determined with all other holidays reserved. Both Jose and Jennifer were permitted to communicate with A.R. while spending parenting time with the other parent at all reasonable times by phone, text, or email. Designation of the child's address for school enrollment was reserved. The right of first refusal of parenting time was also reserved. In all categories of significant decision-making—education, health, religion, and extracurricular activities—Jose and Jennifer had to make joint decisions until a permanent division of these responsibilities occurred.

¶ 9 The trial court entered this temporary parenting order that same date. In a separate order, the trial court ordered the parties to mediate the remainder of the issues of parental responsibilities and parenting time. The court's order stated that if these issues were not resolved by November 15, 2017, that the court may appoint a GAL.

¶ 10 Jose and Jennifer met with the mediator on two dates. The first session was on September 26, 2017, at which they finalized the details of their temporary agreed parenting agreement. On November 28, 2017, the parties again met with the mediator and completed the balance of the temporary plan including allocation of parental responsibilities and parenting time on certain holidays.

¶ 11 Jennifer's attorney asked the court to appoint Bonnie Levo as the child's GAL. The court agreed and appointed attorney Levo on December 13, 2017.

¶ 12 On March 20, 2018, the GAL sent a letter to the court and to the attorneys for Jose and Jennifer to ask the court to settle upcoming holiday parenting time if the parties could not agree. On April 17, 2018, the trial court entered a detailed order containing the holidays and birthdays schedule.

¶ 13 On May 16, 2018, Jennifer filed a motion to modify the temporary agreed parenting order. She alleged that there had been a substantial and continuing change in circumstances in the following respects:

(1) Jose would not provide diapers for A.R. at the Goddard School and the school had to "borrow" diapers from other children;

(2) A.R. experienced recurring diaper rash and vaginitis after parenting time with Jose;(3) Jennifer utilized local law enforcement at parenting time exchanges "due to [Jose]'s acts and actions";

(4) Jose had cursed at and made vulgar hand gestures directed to Jennifer in front of A.R.;

(5) A.R. tells Jennifer that daddy is going to replace mommy; and

(6) A.R. told Jennifer that daddy does not want A.R. anymore because she broke something at his home.

In this motion, Jennifer also alleged that she feared that Jose would leave the area with A.R. and requested that Jose provide a copy of his citizenship paperwork.

¶ 14 On May 21, 2018, the court entered an order setting vacation geographic parameters (Illinois or Missouri) and the dates awarded each parent. The trial court denied Jose's request to take A.R. to Florida on vacation and ordered him to provide copies of his passport and citizenship paperwork to the GAL.

¶ 15 Jose asked the trial court to modify the temporary agreed parenting order on July 16, 2018, by extending his alternate weekends from Sunday evening until Monday morning.

¶ 16 The only reported "evidence" is in the GAL's September 11, 1018, report to the court. There is no transcript of the court's hearing. No bystander's report was provided when the record on appeal was filed. Later, Jose filed a motion in this court seeking to compel cooperation in the preparation of a bystander's report and to supplement the record on appeal. On May 9, 2019, we denied this motion.

¶ 17 Much of the GAL's report is based upon the various meetings and interviews she conducted. The report is lengthy and is summarized in the following paragraphs.

¶ 18 Jennifer met with the GAL at the GAL's office. She confirmed that Jose was the father of A.R. She currently lives with her parents in Livingston. She stated that Jose was a stay-at-home father for the first year of A.R.'s life. She told the GAL that she left the house she shared with Jose because he was teaching A.R. to hit her, scream at her, and throw things at her. A.R. currently attends the Goddard School in Edwardsville and Jose pays her tuition. Jose is not otherwise paying child support. At the time of the interview, Jennifer worked at Reliance Bank. She claimed that Jose earned between $75,000 and $100,000 annually.

¶ 19 Jennifer made various negative allegations about Jose. She told Levo that Jose used to live in California, but he ran away from debts and returned to the area. Jose's mother used to live in Edwardsville, but she moved to Miami to live with another son before Jose could "clean her out of all of her money." Jennifer complained about Jose's friend from Hannibal, Missouri, and stated her concern that Jose would attempt to take A.R. to this man's house where there were young female escorts and underage drinking. She told the GAL that Jose refused to allow A.R. to get tubes surgically placed in her ears. Jennifer stated that Jose made "disruptions" at the Goddard School including telling A.R. that her clothing was dirty. She claimed that he had obsessive tendencies, that he videotaped her, that he called her names in front of A.R., that she considered him to be a flight risk, and that he had not filed tax returns for several years.

¶ 20 Jennifer also made multiple allegations of Jose's criminal and anger...