Sadler v. Pulliam

2022 IL App (5th) 220213

217 N.E.3d 181

466 Ill.Dec. 354

Jacob SADLER, Petitioner-Appellee,

v.Samantha PULLIAM, Respondent-Appellant.

NO. 5-22-0213

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

Rule 23 Order Filed September 2, 2022

Motion to Publish allowed October 4, 2022

Opinion filed October 4, 2022

Winter Daye Campanella, of Carterville, IL, for appellant.

Matthew Brian Ferrell of Cape Girardeau, MO, for appellee.

JUSTICE BARBERIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Respondent, Samantha Pulliam (Sam), appeals from the judgment of the circuit court of Union County awarding joint decision-making and equal parenting time to her and petitioner, Jacob Sadler, with regard to their minor child, W.P. We reverse and remand.

¶ 2 I. Background

¶ 3 The parties never married. On February 3, 2019, their daughter, W.P., was born.

¶ 4 On August 23, 2019, Jacob filed a petition to establish parentage and parental responsibility. On September 19, 2019, Sam filed an answer to Jacob's petition to establish parentage and parental responsibility. On January 14, 2020, Jacob filed a motion for DNA testing, which the circuit court granted. On June 30, 2020, the parties entered into an agreed order to attend mediation to resolve the pending matters concerning W.P.

¶ 5 On September 11, 2020, the mediator filed its report. The report indicated that mediation was not held because an "impediment was found to exist." A docket entry from November 2, 2020, indicated that Sam experienced health issues that interfered with the mediation.

¶ 6 On January 19, 2021, Jacob filed a motion for temporary parenting time. On April 19, 2021, the circuit court ordered the parties to tender a temporary parenting time order. The court ordered the parties to schedule mediation by June 7, 2021, the date of the next hearing.

¶ 7 On May 20, 2021, Jacob filed a motion requesting the circuit court order mediation for the parties. The next day, the court ordered the parties to complete mediation within 60 days.

¶ 8 On June 7, 2021, and August 2, 2021, the circuit court ordered the parties to schedule and complete mediation. On October 4, 2021, the court ordered the parties to complete mediation by October 18, 2021. Shortly thereafter, the mediator filed a report. The report concluded that mediation ended without agreement between the parties on the allocation of parental responsibilities and parenting time.

¶ 9 On October 18, 2021, the circuit court held a case management conference. A docket entry in the common law record on appeal indicated the following: "Mediation has failed. *** Parties reach agreement. Agreement is for weekly increase in parenting time for petitioner [Jacob] over next 7 weeks. [B]oth parties verbally affirm their agreement in open court. Parties to submit order." The common law record on appeal does not contain a court order or transcript of the proceedings from this hearing, and the docket entry does not state the details of Jacob's increased parenting time.¹

¶ 10 On January 27, 2022, Jacob filed a "Statement of Contested Issues," seeking equal parenting time and joint decision-making. Jacob requested a "two-two-three" rotating parenting schedule, with the parties alternating holidays and each party receiving two nonconsecutive, uninterrupted weeks in the summer. Jacob also attached his income statements from 2019 and 2020 for child support calculation purposes. Additionally, Jacob filed a proposed judgment of allocation of parental responsibilities, requesting that the circuit court award equal parenting responsibilities, including decision-making responsibilities and parenting time.

¶ 11 That same day, Sam filed a pretrial memorandum that included her proposed parenting plan and child support calculations. Sam requested the circuit court grant her sole decision-making responsibilities on all significant decisions regarding W.P.’s education, healthcare treatment, educational choices, and extracurricular activities. Sam also requested that the court award her majority parenting time. Sam proposed that Jacob have regular parenting time every other weekend from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday and from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday, until W.P. was 10 years old. After W.P.’s tenth birthday, Sam proposed that Jacob have W.P. every other weekend from Saturday at 9 a.m. until Sunday at 6 p.m. Sam also proposed that Jacob have parenting time with W.P. every year from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Father's Day, the day after Thanksgiving, and the day after Christmas. Moreover, Sam claimed that Jacob never paid child support and requested retroactive child support payments dating back to W.P.’s birth on February 3, 2019, in the sum of $25,433.06.

¶ 12 On February 7, 2022, the circuit court held a case management conference. The docket entry states: "Prior temporary order is in effect until further order of the court."²

¶ 13 On March 3, 2022, Jacob filed a petition for rule to show cause, alleging Sam violated the circuit court's October 18, 2021, order when she refused to allow Jacob to see W.P. after the February 7, 2022, hearing. According to Jacob, on February 7, 2022, the court ordered the parties to continue the court's previous parenting time arrangement from October 18, 2021. According to Jacob, "[t]he parties previously announced to the Court and in fact implemented a phased in parenting time schedule that concluded with the father receiving eight (8) hours of parenting time on each of his two days off per week." Jacob argued, however, that Sam refused Jacob parenting time because "[W.P.] has a broken leg and is under doctors’ orders not to move the leg more than necessary." Jacob also argued that Sam failed to provide the court with testimony or medical records that Jacob could not exercise his parenting time due to W.P.’s broken leg.

¶ 14 On March 4, 2022, Sam filed a motion to dismiss Jacob's petition for rule to show cause based on his failure to comply with local rule 4.2 of the First Judicial Circuit (1st Judicial Cir. Ct. R. 4.2 (Jan. 11, 2019)) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191 (eff. Jan. 4, 2013). Several days later, Sam filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing, first, that Jacob failed to comply with local rule 4.3 of the First Judicial Circuit (1st Judicial Cir. Ct. R. 4.3 (Jan. 11, 2019)) and, second, that a court order was never entered awarding Jacob increased parenting time on October 18, 2021, thus, she could not be held in contempt of court.

¶ 15 On March 11, 2022, the circuit court held a bench trial on Jacob's petition to establish parentage and parental responsibility. From the outset, the court, in referencing Jacob's petition for rule to show cause and Sam's motions to dismiss, stated that it "prefer[red] to move on to the merits before we deal with the other issues." As such, the court heard testimony and argument on Jacob's petition. After opening statements, the following testimony was adduced.

¶ 16 A. Jacob Sadler

¶ 17 Jacob testified to the following. Jacob lived in Karnak, Illinois, with his girlfriend of four years, Chelsea Ruffo Bosecker, and her two minor children, who lived with the couple 50% of the time. Jacob's parents, brother, sister-in-law, and their five minor children lived in close proximity to Jacob to help care for W.P. Jacob explained that he "backed away" from Sam after she announced her pregnancy and before W.P.’s birth, but he met W.P. two or three days after she was born. Even though a paternity test confirmed he was W.P.’s father, Sam denied him parenting time on several occasions. Jacob initially engaged in supervised visits with W.P. at his parents’ house, Sam's house, or at a park near Sam's house. After some time, however, Sam agreed to a "graduated-type schedule of visitation," where Jacob would "build up" unsupervised time with W.P., starting with two hours and progressing to eight hours per visit.

¶ 18 On January 15, 2022, W.P. fell on a trampoline at Vertical Jump in Paducah, Kentucky, with Jacob, Chelsea, and Chelsea's minor children. After the fall, W.P. was unable to walk. Jacob initially thought W.P. sprained her ankle, so he carried her to the lounge area, messaged Sam, and applied ice to her injury. Despite this, W.P.’s leg swelled. After it was clear that W.P. was in pain, Jacob messaged Sam requesting her to meet at a hospital. Jacob drove W.P. to Sam's house around 6:30 p.m. that evening. According to Jacob, Sam took W.P. to the hospital without him, and she did not contact him until 9 p.m., at which time he learned that W.P. broke two bones in her leg.

¶ 19 Jacob testified that Sam withheld parenting time after W.P. broke her leg on January 15, 2022, which violated the circuit court's October 18, 2021, order. Jacob's attorney stated that Jacob would stipulate to the court's October 18, 2021, docket entry. Sam's attorney, however, asked the court to clarify the specifics of the court's docket entry, provided there was substantial discussion at the hearing that day. The court responded that an agreed temporary order was entered on October 18, 2021, however, the order was "not in my record." To the court's knowledge, Sam was to provide the "medical records *** so the Petitioner understood the doctor had indicated what restrictions are and the Court would as well." Sam's attorney objected to classifying the parties’ agreement as an order, because the parties never submitted, and the court never entered, such order. The court indicated that it would "certainly consider [the] parties’ prior conduct before me as a credibility issue at the very least in the underlying issue, whether or not I accept what they're telling me to be the truth." Jacob clarified that Sam did not provide documentation demonstrating Jacob could not care for W.P.’s broken leg.

¶ 20 As it related to Jacob's proposed judgment of allocation of parental responsibilities, he requested joint decision-making and equal parenting time, based on a two-two-three rotating schedule. Jacob worked in Anna, Illinois, at Choate Mental Health...