In re Marriage of Garnhart , 2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U ( 2021 )

2021 IL App (2d) 191043-UNo. 2-19-1043
Order filed October 29, 2021
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent
except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(l).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
In re MARRIAGE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
JUSTIN C. GARNHART, ) of Winnebago County.
)
Petitioner-Appellee, )
)
and ) No. 17-D-41
)
MEGHAN M. GARNHART, ) Honorable
) Ronald A. Barch,
Respondent-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING JUSTICE BRIDGES delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Hudson and Birkett concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered respondent-appellant to
undergo a drug and alcohol abuse assessment and treatment, if necessary, as a
prerequisite to modifying its order limiting her to supervised parenting time. The
trial court also did not abuse its discretion when it admitted into evidence certain
of respondent-appellant’s social media posts presented by the guardian ad litem
which had not been disclosed in discovery because they were made subsequent to
the trial’s commencement. Therefore, we affirm.
¶2 Following a three day hearing on the allocation of parental responsibilities and parenting
time for the parties’ two children, the trial court awarded sole decision-making authority to
petitioner-appellee Justin C. Garnhart. The trial court also found that respondent-appellant Meghan
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-UM. Garnhart had engaged in conduct which seriously endangered the children’s mental, moral, and
emotional health, and it restricted Meghan’s parenting time to supervised time pursuant to section
603.10(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/603.10(a) (West
2018)). As part of its decision, the trial court also required Meghan to, inter alia, undergo an
assessment and, if necessary, treatment for drug and alcohol abuse before she could seek
unsupervised parenting time. On appeal, Meghan argues that the trial court abused its discretion
when it admitted certain social media posts into evidence and when it ordered her to undergo an
evaluation and treatment for drug abuse. We affirm
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 Relevant Procedural History
¶5 On January 17, 2017, Justin filed a petition for dissolution of the parties’ marriage. On
February 15, 2017, Justin filed a petition for an emergency order of protection against Meghan,
alleging that she assaulted him and complaining of her hysterical conduct in front of their children.
His request was granted. That same day, Meghan was arrested and charged with obstructing
service of process of the order of protection, a Class B misdemeanor, to which she pled guilty in
exchange for 12 months of court supervision.
¶6 On February 23, 2017, the trial court modified the February 15, 2017, order of protection
by removing the children as parties and by adding a provision preventing the parties from
discussing the divorce proceedings with or disparaging one another to the children.
¶7 On March 2, 2017, a temporary agreed order was entered which set a parenting schedule,
ordered the parties to attend co-parenting classes, limited communication between the parties to
text messages, and vacated the emergency order of protection.
¶8 On April 19, 2017, an order was entered which, inter alia, prohibited the parties from
-2-
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-Umaking disparaging remarks to each other in front of the children.
¶9 On August 9, 2017, at the request of an individual who is not a party to this litigation, an
emergency stalking no contact order was entered against Meghan. On August 10, 2017, Meghan
was arrested for violation of that order after she sent a text message to the individual after being
served with the order. Meghan pled guilty to a Class A misdemeanor charge for violating that order
in exchange for 12 months of court supervision.
¶ 10 On November 21, 2017, Justin filed a petition for temporary relief based upon Meghan
texting and calling him hundreds of times in violation of the March 2, 2017, order and her
discussing the litigation with the children and disparaging him in front of them.
¶ 11 On January 23, 2018, a supplemental order was entered which limited the parties’
communication to Our Family Wizard, 1 prohibited them from speaking to each other during
exchanges, and placed restrictions on phone conversations with the children during the other’s
parenting time.
¶ 12 On March 26, 2018, Meghan was arrested and charged with a Class 3 felony for aggravated
assault against Justin’s step-father, Mark Lotzer, for which she was tried and found not guilty.
Based in part upon the alleged assault, Justin filed a second petition for an emergency order of
1
Our Family Wizard is an application designed to promote better communication between
divorced or divorcing parents. It is a tool to help parents communicate, schedule custody, and enter
specific appointments for their children. It allows the parents to send messages to each other about
what the children are or should be doing during the week and provides a contemporaneous record
of those communications. Barry D. Bayer, Better Searching, and Matrimonial Communication on
the Web, LAW OFFICE TECHNOLOGY REVIEW, Nov. 14, 2001, 2001 WL 1829161.
-3-
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-Uprotection against Meghan. Justin’s request was granted and the trial court suspended Meghan’s
parenting time pending further order of court.
¶ 13 On April 9, 2018, another agreed temporary order was entered which suspended Meghan’s
parenting time and limited her contact with the children to phone calls initiated by the children. It
also provided that Justin could monitor and record the phone calls and that he could terminate them
if Meghan began discussing the proceedings or using foul language.
¶ 14 On April 19, 2018, Meghan filed a petition to restore her parenting time. On April 30, 2018,
Justin filed a petition requesting that Meghan’s parenting time be supervised and that exchanges
take place at Safe Harbor.
¶ 15 On May 16, 2018, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order
granting Meghan supervised parenting time, and which again barred the parties from discussing
the case or one another with the children. On July 3, 2018, an order was entered which provided
for the transition from supervised to unsupervised parenting time for Meghan and again barred the
parties from discussing the case or one another with the children. On August 14, 2018, an order
was entered allowing unsupervised parenting time for Meghan.
¶ 16 On September 14, 2018, the trial court issued a rule to show cause against both parties
based on allegations that they had been discussing the case with and making disparaging comments
about each other to the children.
¶ 17 On December 14, 2018, Justin filed a petition to place Meghan back on supervised
parenting time based on her violation of the orders prohibiting discussion of the case and
disparaging Justin towards the children. On December 19, 2018, an order was entered suspending
Meghan’s unsupervised parenting time and phone communications with the children.
¶ 18 On February 1, 2019, an order was entered vacating the rule to show cause against Justin
-4-
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-Uand finding Meghan in contempt for violating the trial court’s previous orders. The trial court
entered a stayed sentence of 12 days in jail which she could purge by complying with the trial
court’s orders in the future.
¶ 19 On February 26, 2019, a temporary order was entered providing a schedule for supervised
parenting for Meghan and allowing for scheduled phone calls between the children and Meghan.
Justin had the right to monitor, record, and terminate the phone calls if Meghan discussed any
prohibited subjects.
¶ 20 On March 5, 2019, Meghan filed a motion to modify parenting time, requesting inter alia
that she have unsupervised parenting time with the children. Following a hearing on April 23,
2019, the trial court granted Meghan unsupervised parenting time on May 3, 2019. On May 6,
2019, Justin moved to reconsider and to vacate the May 3, 2019, order on the basis that Meghan
had violated the trial court’s orders regarding discussing the case with the children between the
April 23, 2019, hearing and the trial court’s May 3, 2019, order.
¶ 21 On May 22, 2019, an order was entered once again finding Meghan in contempt for
violating the trial court’s orders regarding communication with the children and restricting
Meghan’s parenting time to supervised visits.
¶ 22 An evidentiary hearing was held regarding the parties’ allocation of parental
responsibilities on June 12, June 14, and July 2, 2019. Between the second and third day of trial,
a plenary order of protection was entered against Meghan in favor of Justin, with the trial court
entering an addendum to the plenary order of protection on July 2, 2019.
¶ 23 On July 24, 2019, the trial court entered a memorandum of decision indicating it would
enter a judgment assigning all parental decision-making responsibilities to Justin. Consistent with
the memorandum of judgment, on August 22, 2019, a corresponding parenting plan order was
-5-
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-Uentered. On September 23, 2019, Meghan filed a motion to reconsider the trial court’s August 22,
2019, parenting plan order, and the related memorandum of decision. On November 25, 2019, the
trial court denied Meghan’s motion to reconsider, and she timely appealed.
¶ 24 Hearing and Other Evidence
¶ 25 To begin, we note that in rendering its decision, the trial court made reference to and
explicitly incorporated factual findings from related proceedings which have not been included in
the record on appeal. “[A]n appellant has the burden to present a sufficiently complete record of
the proceedings at trial to support a claim of error, and in the absence of such a record on appeal,
it will be presumed that the order entered by the trial court was in conformity with law and had a
sufficient factual basis.” Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984). “[A]ny doubts that
may arise from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant.” In re
Linda B., 2017 IL 119392, ¶ 43. Accordingly, we will presume that those factual findings were
supported by the evidence and would support the trial court’s decision.
¶ 26 Justin and Meghan were married on October 28, 2006. There were two children born to the
parties; M.G., born March 6, 2007, and S.G., born April 28, 2011. Additionally, Meghan had
another child, N.B., as the result of a prior dating relationship with a man named Steve Baxter.
Prior to the breakdown of the parties’ marriage, N.B. lived with Justin and Meghan.
¶ 27 On December 6, 2016, Meghan moved out of the parties’ marital home and began living
at one of her family’s rental properties. She returned to the marital home on December 29, 2016,
against the wishes of Justin before eventually moving out again. By all accounts, prior to the
breakdown of the marriage, Justin and Meghan were able to effectively co-parent. Likewise, Steve
Baxter testified that he and Meghan were able to co-parent N.B. amicably. However, almost
immediately after Meghan moved out, the parties’ ability to communicate began to deteriorate.
-6-
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U¶ 28 Throughout this period until the entry of an order of protection prohibiting communication
with Justin, and even after that, Meghan would bombard him with a constant stream of text
messages and phone calls in rapid succession, sometimes sending several texts per minute. Justin
would sometimes receive hundreds of texts or calls a day. The messages were profanity laden and
would frequently insult Justin’s appearance, manhood, and abilities as a father and husband.
Meghan would alternate between insulting him and pleading with him to reconcile with her. She
would also make disparaging remarks about Justin’s mother, step-father, and other family
members, and at least once made racist remarks regarding Justin’s counsel. Justin would usually
not respond, or sometimes reply with brief messages asking her to stop. Meghan would also make
veiled and overt suicidal threats in her text messages to Justin, including times when she had the
children. During one incident on September 6, 2017, Justin felt concerned enough to call the police
to perform a welfare check.
¶ 29 A similar barrage of communications was likewise directed towards several other persons
in the litigation including the guardian ad litem (GAL), Justin’s counsel, Meghan’s counsel, and
the children’s counselor, Elise Cadigan.
¶ 30 Eventually the parties came to a parenting schedule. However, Meghan would frequently
interfere with Justin’s parenting time or use the exchanges to alternatively beg Justin to reconcile,
insult him, or try to negotiate aspects of the divorce. During these instances she would often cry
and yell hysterically and had no reservations about berating Justin in front of the children, who
were often left crying and upset by her behavior. In a noteworthy incident on May 30, 2017,
Meghan delayed returning the children to Justin by seven hours, and when he arrived to pick them
up, she wedged her arm in between the window of his car, preventing him from closing it, before
forcing her way into the passenger seat of his vehicle. In another incident on July 8, 2017, while
-7-
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-UJustin was home with the girls, she entered the home without permission, made sexual advances
towards him, threatened suicide, and then climbed onto the roof where she sat crying. On October
29, 2017, during an exchange, as Justin began to leave after picking up the children, Meghan ran
over to prevent him from entering his vehicle. This caused them to come into contact as he tried
to enter the vehicle. At which point she screamed, “Daddy is trying to hurt mommy.” Justin
estimated the Meghan interrupted between 10 and 20 exchanges.
¶ 31 During his parenting time, if he was busy, Justin would sometimes leave the children with
his mother and step-father. Prior to the parties’ separation, Justin’s parents would often pick the
children up from school on the days Justin and Meghan were busy. Mark Lotzer and Justin’s
mother, Sandy Lotzer, testified about how Meghan would interrupt the children’s time with their
grandparents by showing up wherever they were, causing a scene, and demanding that the
grandparents surrender the children to her. While one instance occurred at the grandparents’ home,
these confrontations often took place in public in front of the children’s peers with incidents
occurring at the Cherryvale Mall, M.G.’s school, and S.G.’s gymnastics school. These incidents
occurred between January 2017 and February 2018.
¶ 32 While there was no suggestion that Meghan physically abused the children, there were
instances of violence directed towards Justin and his step-father. The trial court found by a
preponderance of the evidence that, on February 15, 2017, Meghan threw a basket at Justin, which
hit a wall and broke into pieces within a few feet of him. She then proceeded to punch him multiple
times in the torso and strike him in the head. Additionally, though she was found not guilty in a
related criminal case, the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that she had
assaulted Mark Lotzer by shoving him, punching him in the face, and knocking off his glasses.
Though Meghan denied that this occurred, Justin and Mark Lotzer testified to it and provided the
-8-
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-Utrial court with a photograph of Mr. Lotzer’s injured face. This incident occurred on March 26,
2018, at the marital home when Meghan was supposed to be picking up some of her possessions.
¶ 33 As a result of Meghan’s assault on Mark Lotzer, her parenting time was suspended from
March 26 to May 16, 2018. From May 16, 2018, onward Meghan had supervised parenting time,
except for the period of August 14 to December 19, 2018, where she exercised unsupervised
parenting time.
¶ 34 Meghan was also allowed to speak to the children over the phone. Initially, the children
could call her whenever they wanted, but Meghan began to pressure them about the frequency of
their calls, and the calls had to be placed on a schedule. Because of the way Meghan would act
during the calls, Justin received permission to monitor, record, and, if necessary, terminate the
phone calls.
¶ 35 During these phone calls Meghan would sometimes try to discuss the case with the children
or disparage Justin. On some occasions Meghan would break down crying, which made the
children upset. There were several recorded phone calls where the children are either crying or
asking Meghan not to talk about the litigation. In one phone call recorded on November 25, 2018,
the children can be heard crying and pleading to end the phone call as Meghan accuses Justin of
trying to stand in the way of her relationship with them.
¶ 36 With regard to supervised parenting time, the reports from supervisor Patrice Turner were
generally positive, however, Meghan would occasionally try to discuss the proceedings with the
children and have to be steered away from the topic. The GAL reported that M.G. had said that
Meghan just cried during the Safe Harbor visits and would not play games with them.
¶ 37 Unsupervised parenting time was another matter. The GAL testified that the children told
her that during her unsupervised parenting time Meghan would slam or pretend to slam her arm in
-9-
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-Uthe door to get attention. She would also involve the children in asking Justin for more time and
try to change the plans, despite the schedule being set by court order. Meghan would accuse Justin
of divorcing her at the same time her mother died to make her feel bad. The children also reported
that Meghan would call Justin’s girlfriend a f***ing b****. She also called Justin’s mother and
sister a f***ing b*** during unsupervised visits. The children reported that Meghan would cry
when she was alone with them and lament about how no one loved her and everyone forgot her.
She would also pressure them to call her, and when the children responded by asking about the
schedule, she told them she did not care what the judge said. The children also reported that she
would try to get the children to say that Justin was telling them to say bad things about her, and
get them to say bad things about him.
¶ 38 The GAL also reported that when the trial court had ordered that unsupervised parenting
time would resume, the children had expressed dread, with M.G. reporting having diarrhea at the
very prospect. When they were told that unsupervised visits would not be happening, they both
expressed relief.
¶ 39 Over the course of the litigation, Meghan repeatedly violated the trial court’s orders.
Particularly, she violated its orders relating to communications with Justin and its prohibitions on
discussing the litigation with or disparaging Justin to the girls. At trial Meghan testified that she
was embarrassed by her behavior and that she was now over Justin. However, as late as June 5,
2019, the trial court found that she was still making phone calls to Justin in violation of the order
of protection. As recently as April 23, 2019, she was recorded discussing the litigation with the
children.
¶ 40 Further, between the second and third days of the hearing, Meghan sent Facebook messages
to Justin’s girlfriend inviting her to join a Pinterest board calling her inter alia a “skank” and a
- 10 -
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U“homewrecker.” The board also contained a post saying, “Sorry you can’t adopt my kids too…
don’t you have enough already?” Meghan claimed that these messages were sent weeks before
and not during the trial. The trial court found that any improvement in Meghan’s behavior was
more attributable to the trial court’s orders rather than any personal growth.
¶ 41 Ultimately the trial court found that Meghan’s conduct seriously endangered the mental,
moral, and emotional health of the children. At the recommendation of the GAL, it granted sole
decision-making responsibilities to Justin and ordered that Meghan’s parenting time would be
restricted to supervised parenting time and monitored phone calls. The trial court concluded its
order with the following:
“Ms. Garnhart would be well-served by undergoing an assessment for substance
abuse, anger issues and mental health concerns. The trial court will consider a motion to
modify once Ms. Garnhart is able to establish that she has been evaluated in all three areas
and has completed and recommended treatment and counseling. Ultimately, modification
of the parental restrictions will remain available as governed by 750 ILCS 5/603.10(b).”
¶ 42 Meghan timely appealed.
¶ 43 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 44 At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Meghan
to undergo evaluation and, if necessary, treatment for drug and alcohol abuse before it would
consider modifying the parenting order to include unsupervised visits. Also at issue is whether the
trial court erred in admitting social media posts from Meghan disparaging Justin’s girlfriend.
¶ 45 Drug Assessment
¶ 46 Meghan argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering her to undergo an
evaluation for drug and alcohol abuse where there was no evidence presented that Meghan was
- 11 -
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-Uabusing drugs and there was very little evidence of alcohol abuse. Meghan also takes issue with
the fact that the trial court did not outline the scope of the evaluation or which types of drugs she
was to be evaluated for. Meghan does not cite any caselaw in support of her argument. We note,
however, that section 603.10 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which
authorizes the court to place restrictions on parental responsibilities if it finds that a parent’s
conduct endangers the child’s mental, moral, or physical health, has only been in place since
January 1, 2016, and replaces the now repealed section 607 (750 ILCS 5/607 (West 2014). In re
Marriage of Mayes, 2018 IL App (4th) 180149, ¶ 56. The previous statute did not include a
provision which specifically allowed the courts to order a parent to undergo treatment for drug or
alcohol abuse. See 750 ILCS 5/603.10(a)(8) (West 2018). There is no caselaw which specifically
addresses section 603.10(a)(8).
¶ 47 Once the trial court has determined that a parent has engaged in conduct that “seriously
endangered the child’s mental, moral, or physical health or that significantly impaired the child’s
emotional development,” it must use its discretion to apply appropriate restrictions to parenting
responsibilities in order to provide for the child’s safety and welfare. 750 ILCS 5/603.10(a) (West
2018). Accordingly, we review the trial court’s order requiring Meghan to undergo an assessment
and, if necessary, treatment for drug and alcohol abuse for an abuse of discretion. Mayes, 2018 IL
App (4th) 180149, ¶ 58. “An abuse of discretion occurs only when the trial court’s decision is
arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by
the trial court.” Seymour v. Collins, 2015 IL 118432, ¶ 41.
¶ 48 While we agree with Meghan that there was no direct evidence of drug abuse, we do not
find that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering an assessment for drug and alcohol abuse.
By all accounts the breakdown of Meghan and Justin’s marriage led to a dramatic and severe shift
- 12 -
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-Uin her behavior. Meghan’s friends and family testified that she was a loving and caring mother.
Justin acknowledged that prior to the breakdown of the marriage, he and Meghan were able to
effectively co-parent their children and did not describe any misconduct of the type which led to
the entry of the court’s order. Likewise, Steve Baxter testified that he and Meghan were able to
effectively co-parent N.B. without any of the issues exhibited in the instant case.
¶ 49 Ultimately, no satisfactory explanation for Meghan’s behavior was ever found. Several
explanations were posited by the GAL such as bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder,
and narcissistic personality disorder. However, the GAL was not a trained psychologist, and these
explanations were therefore speculative. Meghan testified that she was taking medication for
depression. With regard to alcohol abuse, Justin testified that during the incident in which Meghan
forced herself into his car he could smell “booze” on her breath. The GAL testified that as it got
later in the day, Meghan’s messages to her would become angrier, would use more improper
language, and would contain more errors. She believed this was indicative of alcohol use. The
GAL also testified that Elise Cadigan had expressed concerns regarding Meghan abusing alcohol.
As such, the GAL recommended that Meghan undergo an alcohol or substance abuse assessment.
¶ 50 While there was nothing that indicated an issue with drug abuse per se, in light of the fact
that there was some indication of alcohol abuse and the unexplained dramatic shift in Meghan’s
personality and behavior, we cannot say that the trial court’s decision was arbitrary, fanciful, or
unreasonable. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
¶ 51 Social Media Evidence
¶ 52 Meghan argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it accepted evidence of social
media posts presented by the GAL after the discovery cutoff date. Meghan argues that while GALs
may consider evidence in creating their reports which is otherwise inadmissible, the trial court
- 13 -
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-Ushould not have considered the evidence in this case because it created undue surprise for Meghan,
and that surprise impeded the ability of trial counsel to cross-examine the GAL. Meghan also takes
issue with the fact that the social media posts were provided to the GAL by Justin’s counsel who
received them from Justin’s girlfriend, and claims that Justin engaged in gamesmanship.
¶ 53 Meghan further maintains that the trial court’s consideration of this evidence was
prejudicial to her as one of the primary concerns was whether her behavior was improving, and
this evidence tended to indicate that it had not. Meghan also notes that the trial court discussed the
social media posts both in issuing its initial memorandum and in the hearing on Meghan’s motion
to reconsider.
¶ 54 Justin argues that both parties had the social media posts prior to the GAL’s testimony,
Meghan was given the opportunity to cross-examine the GAL regarding the posts but chose not
to, and Meghan indicated there would be no objection to the exhibit if the dates of the posts could
be corroborated.
¶ 55 “It is within the discretion of the circuit court to decide whether evidence is relevant and
admissible, and a reviewing court will not disturb the circuit court’s decision absent a clear abuse
of that discretion.” Peach v. McGovern, 2019 IL 123156, ¶ 25. “An abuse of discretion occurs only
when the trial court’s decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable or where no reasonable person
would take the view adopted by the trial court.” Collins, 2015 IL 118432, ¶ 41. An erroneous
ruling on the admissibility of evidence is harmless where the result reached is not affected by the
ruling, and it is the burden of the party seeking reversal of a trial court’s evidentiary ruling to
establish prejudice. Atkins v. Thapedi, 166 Ill. App. 3d 471, 477 (1988).
¶ 56 In performing their duty, GALs are permitted to consider both admissible and inadmissible
evidence. In re Marriage of Karonis, 296 Ill. App. 3d 86, 91 (1998). Where a party has the
- 14 -
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-Uopportunity to cross-examine a GAL regarding a particular exhibit but fails to do so, they cannot
later claim to have been prejudiced. Id. Meghan claimed that the social media posts were made
“much, much earlier” than when Justin’s girlfriend claimed but did not cross-examine the GAL on
the posts. Further, at the close of trial, Meghan indicated that if Justin’s counsel provided date and
time stamps for the social media posts that indicated they were made during the testified time
period, there would be no objection to the posts. Additionally, the trial court afforded the parties
an opportunity to submit written arguments regarding the admissibility of the posts. The record
does not indicate whether Meghan was provided with time and date stamped copies, or if either
party submitted further arguments on the issue.
¶ 57 However, because Meghan was provided with copies of the posts prior to the GAL’s
testimony, given the opportunity to cross-examine the GAL, and permitted to submit further
written arguments against the admission of the posts, Meghan cannot claim that she was prejudiced
or surprised by the admission of the posts. Id.; Banks v. United Insurance Co. of America, 28 Ill.
App. 3d 60, 64 (1975) (surprise can be cured by a continuance).
¶ 58 Even assuming arguendo that the trial court erred in admitting the social media posts, we
cannot say that the admission of the social media posts affected the outcome of the case in light of
the overwhelming evidence supporting that Meghan endangered the mental, moral, and emotional
health of the children. The GAL testified that she had four boxes of problematic communications
from Meghan to various persons and that were she to present all her concerns in full, it would take
two weeks. The GAL also testified that Meghan had violated the majority of the trial court’s orders
in the case, if not all of them. In rendering its decision, the trial court incorporated by reference
the factual findings of three prior orders against Meghan and still felt the need to emphasize that
its analysis contained “only highlights of the material evidence and testimony.” “ ‘Where it appears
- 15 -
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-Uthat an error did not affect the outcome below, or where the court can see from the entire record
that no injury has been done, the judgment or decree will not be disturbed.’ ” J.L. Simmons Co.,
Inc. ex rel. Hartford Insurance Group v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 108 Ill. 2d 106, 115 (1985)
(quoting Both v. Nelson, 31 Ill. 2d 511, 514 (1964)). While the trial court did discuss the social
media posts in its memorandum and at the hearing on Meghan’s motion to reconsider, in light of
the overwhelming evidence on which the trial court based its decision, we cannot say that the trial
court’s decision would have been any different without them.
¶ 59 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the social media posts.
¶ 60 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 61 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County.
¶ 62 Affirmed.
- 16 -