2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

No. 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-U 

- 2 - 

M. 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 
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

- 3 - 

making 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. 
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

- 4 - 

protection 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 
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

- 5 - 

and 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
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

- 6 - 

entered. 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. 
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

- 7 - 

¶ 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 
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

- 8 - 

Justin 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 
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

- 9 - 

trial 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 
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

- 10 - 

the 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 
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

- 11 - 

“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 
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

- 12 - 

abusing 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 
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

- 13 - 

in 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 
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

- 14 - 

should 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 
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

- 15 - 

opportunity 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 
2021 IL App (2d) 191043-U 

- 16 - 

that 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.