The appellate court affirmed. Divorce decree provided W with exclusive possession of home, though H s name remained on the mortgage and the title. H entered the home. H says W is interfering with telephone visitation and records the call. During the call W, in an effort to frustrate H, plays an old tape recording of H in which he says that he was going to kill himself.
Trial court admits the recording into evidence.
The portion of the tape which recorded a verbal exchange, however, should not have been admitted, but it was harmless error. In a legally, but not factually significant case, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a guardian cannot pursue a divorce on behalf of the ward for lack of standing under the Illinois Probate Act of 1975. In a Rule 23 decision, Judge Torluemke s decision to award joint custody, despite the protest of the W, was upheld. On appeal the W argued that the parties have a total inability to cooperate effectively regarding their son. Judge Torluemke found that the evidence proved that the parties had on occasion been able to meaningfully discuss concerns regarding the minor and through various separations during the marriage were able to work out visitation even though a court order was not required.