Court Opinion

ID: 9554172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 21:16:35.424922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:24.449812
License: Public Domain

NOTICE
                                      2023 IL App (5th) 230076-U
                                                                                    NOTICE
 Decision filed 08/07/23. The
                                                                         This order was filed under
 text of this decision may be               NO. 5-23-0076                Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
 changed or corrected prior to
                                                                         not precedent except in the
 the filing of a Petition for
                                               IN THE                    limited circumstances allowed
 Rehearing or the disposition of
                                                                         under Rule 23(e)(1).
 the same.
                                   APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                             FIFTH DISTRICT
________________________________________________________________________

In re PARENTAGE OF K.E.                     )     Appeal from the
                                            )     Circuit Court of
(Nathan W.,                                 )     White County.
                                            )
      Petitioner-Appellee,                  )
v.                                          )     No. 14-F-46
                                            )
Lindsay E.,                                 )     Honorable
                                            )     Evan L. Owens,
      Respondent-Appellant).                )     Judge, presiding.
________________________________________________________________________

         JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court.
         Justices Welch and Barberis concurred in the judgment.

                                             ORDER

¶1       Held: The circuit court’s visitation order was not against the manifest weight of the
               evidence. The respondent failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the
               circuit court’s decision to allow a witness to testify.

¶2       The respondent, Lindsay E. (Mother), appeals from the judgment of the circuit court

of White County, allocating decision making responsibilities and awarding parenting time

to the petitioner, Nathan W. (Father). Mother additionally claims that the circuit court erred

in allowing testimony from a witness who had been sitting in the courtroom after the circuit

                                                  1
court had excluded witnesses from the trial proceedings. For the following reasons, we

affirm the circuit court’s decision as modified.1

¶3                                      I. BACKGROUND

¶4       K.E. was born on September 17, 2009. Mother and Father, K.E.’s biological

parents, were never married. When K.E. was a one-year-old, Father filed a petition to

establish paternity and for sole custody of K.E. In 2013, that case was dismissed for want

of prosecution. On December 22, 2014, when K.E. was five years old, Father filed a

petition to establish paternity and visitation under the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984 (750

ILCS 45/3 (West 2014)). The trial began on April 26, 2021. The circuit court acknowledged

that Father was the biological parent of K.E., and the circuit court established a visitation

schedule, awarding equal parenting time between the parties, and joint decision-making

responsibilities for education, medical, religious, and extracurricular activities. The

original judgment allocating parental responsibilities and establishing a parenting plan was

entered on July 8, 2021. Mother appealed the circuit court’s decision.

¶5      On appeal, we reversed the judgment of the circuit court and remanded with

directions. See In re K.E., 2022 IL App (5th) 210236. We found that the circuit court erred

in admitting an ex parte evidence deposition of an expert witness, where notice of the

deposition was insufficient under Rule 206(a). Ill. S. Ct. R. 206(a) (eff. Oct. 1, 2019). See

In re K.E., 2022 IL App (5th) 210236. Because the circuit court relied on the evidence

        1
         This decision was issued more than 150 days after the filing of the notice of appeal, for good cause,
under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a)(5) (eff. July 1, 2018), as the briefing schedule was amended
pursuant to two requests for extensions of time by appellant to file her brief.
                                                      2
deposition and outdated report by the court-appointed expert witness, the circuit court’s

findings and conclusions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶6     Prior to the initial trial, the parties participated in mediation and multiple visitation

attempts as described in detail in In re K.E., 2022 IL App (5th) 210236. Dr. Judy Osgood,

Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist, evaluated K.E. on January 7, 2017, when K.E. was

seven years old, and subsequently prepared a report on January 9, 2017. Dr. Osgood’s

report indicated that K.E. suffered from symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

K.E. reported to Dr. Osgood that when he was five years, “I didn’t want to go with [Father],

he pulled me out of the house, he whipped me. [Mother] didn’t see it.” K.E. additionally

reported that when he was seven years old, Father threatened to give him a “butt whipping”

because he had forgotten where he went on New Year’s Eve. Mother filed an emergency

petition on January 12, 2017, asserting that K.E. was “scared, visibly shaken, and starts

crying” due to forthcoming visitation with Father. Mother filed Dr. Osgood’s report with

her emergency petition.

¶7     On February 15, 2017, the circuit court appointed a mental health professional, Dr.

Althoff, to evaluate the parties. Dr. Althoff completed reports on Mother and Father, but

Dr. Althoff passed away before providing testimony in this case. The circuit court

subsequently ordered Dr. Frank Kosmicki, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist, to

perform a custody examination, as well as mental health evaluations, on Mother, Father,

and K.E. The circuit court permitted Dr. Kosmicki to obtain information previously relied

on by Dr. Althoff.

                                               3
¶8     On June 25, 2019, the circuit court entered an order requiring counseling sessions

for K.E. with Dr. John Cooley. Dr. Cooley met with K.E. on several occasions. Dr. Cooley

prepared a report dated December 30, 2019. He believed K.E. was doing well and K.E. did

not have behavioral issues at home or at school. K.E. had anxiety about seeing Father. Dr.

Cooley reported, “I have not heard anything of real concern that would suggest any change

of visitation.”

¶9     Dr. Osgood testified at the initial trial. Two additional reports, dated April 20, 2018,

and May 20, 2019, were admitted into evidence, along with the January 9, 2017, report.

After the circuit court entered judgment on July 8, 2021, K.E. did not receive further

counseling. The parties followed the visitation schedule established by the circuit court for

approximately six months until the decision was issued in In re K.E., 2022 IL App (5th)

210236. After that time, Father’s visitation ceased. K.E. was not evaluated by any of the

experts after his time spent with Father, and no additional updated reports were prepared

for the subsequent trial.

¶ 10   The second trial began on September 16, 2022. On the first day of the trial, Mother

filed a motion for an in camera interview of K.E. The circuit court proceeded to hear

evidence before addressing the motion.

¶ 11   Father called Mother to testify first. Mother testified that K.E. did not want to spend

time with Father. Mother claimed that K.E. was mistreated while spending time with Father

based on an incident where K.E. ran away from Father to avoid spending time with him.

In the past, Mother had refused to allow Father to have visitation time with K.E., but she

had always complied with the court ordered visitation schedule. Mother denied that she
                                         4
“poisoned [her] son against his father.” Mother additionally testified that after the decision

in In re K.E., 2022 IL App (5th) 210236, was issued, Father told K.E. not to return to

Father’s house. Mother believed that Father should not receive any parenting time with

K.E.

¶ 12   After Mother testified, her attorney made a motion for “a rule on witnesses,” to

exclude witnesses from the courtroom. Both attorneys informed the circuit court that

Father’s wife, Lauren W., would not be called as a witness. As a result of these

representations, Lauren remained in the courtroom when Father’s testimony began.

¶ 13   Father then testified that he had been fighting for visitation of his son since K.E.

was a one-year-old. The circuit court awarded Father visitation after the initial trial in 2021.

K.E. lived with Father 50% of the time for a six-month period. Father testified that during

that time, “the pressure seemed to be off of K.E.,” and K.E. started “opening up more” to

Father. During the time Father had visitation, they took a family vacation, and were able

to go fishing, go boating, see movies, and go to dinner as a family. K.E. was able to spend

time with his seven-year-old half-brother, G.W., and his 18-year-old stepsister. Father

wished K.E. would live with him full-time, but he realized that a child needed both of his

parents.

¶ 14   Father would help K.E. with his schoolwork. K.E.’s grades were “rocky at first.”

Father testified that there were “tough conversations” about paying attention and

completing homework assignments. Father helped K.E. improve his grades. Father lived

approximately five minutes from Mother. Lauren, Father’s wife, handled transportation to

and from school during Father’s visitation time.
                                             5
¶ 15   Father testified that after he received the decision in In re K.E., 2022 IL App (5th)

210236, he had more “tough conversations” with K.E. Father explained that K.E. was not

outspoken and Father tried for weeks to talk to K.E. about his thoughts on visitation. Father

admitted that during those conversations, he told K.E. that “when you’re dishonest, when

you’re disloyal, when you lie, I’m not going to reinforce that behavior at our home

anymore.” Father additionally testified that he had to “jump his butt about it.”

¶ 16   After those conversations, K.E. stopped spending time with Father. Father testified

that he would call or text about visitation time with K.E. and never received a response.

Father testified to an instance where he attempted to pick up K.E. after track practice. K.E.

left through the front door of the school to avoid Father and ran to Mother’s house. Father

maintained contact with K.E.’s teachers and coaches after the visitation stopped.

¶ 17   Father additionally testified that he loved K.E. and wanted the best for him. Father

believed K.E. was a “good kid” and that he was able to “do anything he puts his mind to.”

¶ 18   On cross-examination, Father was questioned regarding whether he teased K.E.

about his weight. Father acknowledged that he called K.E., “Slim,” or “Little Slim.” Father

claimed that the nickname, “Little Slim,” was a compliment because K.E.’s grandfather’s

nickname was “Slim.” Father described K.E.’s grandfather as “a big man” and he was

“loved by many.” Father additionally testified that K.E. recently started to lose weight and

that “he’s a big man.” Father believed that K.E. did not want to spend time with Father.

¶ 19   During a break in Father’s testimony, the parties discussed scheduling for the next

trial date. Mother’s attorney stated that he intended to call Dr. Osgood to testify as an expert

witness. Father’s attorney argued that Mother had not disclosed that she intended to call
                                           6
Dr. Osgood as an expert witness. Therefore, he intended to call Lauren W. as a witness, if

Dr. Osgood testified. The circuit court then excluded Lauren W. from the courtroom for

the remainder of Father’s testimony. Additionally, the circuit court requested that the

parties disclose witnesses and any information concerning the witnesses by the following

Monday. The circuit court additionally granted the in camera interview of K.E. without

objection.

¶ 20   Father’s testimony resumed, and Father continued to testify to issues that arose

involving visitation after the decision in In re K.E., 2022 IL App (5th) 210236. Father

continued to appear for visitation and would call K.E., but Mother would not cooperate.

Father testified that K.E. had been “dishonest” and “disloyal” to Father and his family.

Father was hurt and yelled at K.E. because K.E. said that he did not want to continue

visitation. Father claimed that Mother actively interfered with Father’s relationship with

K.E. Father did not believe that K.E. was scared of Father.

¶ 21   Father’s friend, Brett Haley, testified that he had spent time with Father during

visitation with K.E. Brett indicated that K.E. liked to fish and Brett would go fishing with

Father and K.E. Brett never witnessed any issues between Father and K.E. Brett

additionally testified that he observed K.E. interact with his half-brother, G.W. K.E. treated

G.W. like a little brother, and they played well together.

¶ 22   When Father called Lauren W. to testify, Mother argued that Lauren should not be

allowed to testify because she had remained in the courtroom after witnesses were

excluded. The circuit court found that the parties had initially advised that the hearing was

going to consist of testimony from the parties and an in camera interview of K.E. No expert
                                              7
witnesses were expected to testify. During the course of the trial, Mother’s counsel

indicated that they were going to call an expert to testify. After that disclosure, midway

through Father’s testimony, Lauren left the courtroom as directed. The circuit court

allowed testimony from Lauren.

¶ 23   Lauren testified that K.E. was “polite,” “soft spoken,” “very caring,” and “happy.”

K.E. and his half-brother, G.W., would play video games together, wrestle, ride bikes, and

fish. G.W. wanted to do everything with K.E. Lauren and Father would attend K.E.’s home

basketball games and Father attended away games as well.

¶ 24   Lauren testified that the inconsistent visitation “caused a lot of stress.” Lauren

described her relationship with K.E. as “strained.” She treated K.E. as her own child, but

K.E. “put this wall up” and Lauren felt like K.E. was told not to like her. After the decision

in In re K.E., 2022 IL App (5th) 210236, K.E. became quiet and withdrawn.

¶ 25   Lauren believed that it would take time for K.E. to feel comfortable and happy at

their home again. K.E. would be welcomed back and their family was not whole without

K.E. Everyone missed him. Father rested his case after Lauren’s testimony.

¶ 26   Mother then testified, on her own behalf, to her history with Father. At the end of

2009 or beginning of 2010, Father choked Mother in front of K.E. and Mother’s daughter.

After that incident, Mother wanted to protect K.E., and Father had no contact with K.E. for

a period of two years. Father rarely saw K.E. from 2011 to 2014. In 2014, there was an

incident where Father picked up K.E. for visitation and K.E. attempted to run away from

Father. Father “beat him on his butt” after K.E. hopped out of Father’s truck and attempted

to run back into Mother’s house. Then, in 2015 or 2016, Mother and Father participated in
                                            8
mediation and Father received visitation time. K.E. would hide in the closet before

visitation time with Father. Mother additionally testified that K.E. ran away from her once

or twice. Mother “patted [K.E.] on the butt” when he was little to discipline K.E.

¶ 27   Mother testified that she did not think it was in K.E.’s best interest to allow Father

to have visitation. During the last several years, K.E. had told Mother that verbal abuse

occurred at Father’s house from Father and Lauren. Mother believed that Father “belittled”

K.E., which affected his self-confidence and self-esteem. K.E. has been self-conscious

about his weight since Father began making comments in 2019. When K.E. found out that

Father was awarded visitation after the initial trial, K.E. was upset and “bawled for like 2

or 3 hours.” Mother did not send K.E. to the first visitation date with Father because K.E.

was upset. K.E. continued to appear visibly stressed each time he had to go to Father’s

house. K.E.’s demeanor changed, he seemed “significantly happier,” after visitation with

Father stopped.

¶ 28   K.E. has received counseling from approximately five different professionals. K.E.

has not received therapy or attended counseling sessions since the trial in 2021, after Father

was awarded visitation. Mother testified that she “left it alone for a little bit.” Mother has

made every decision for K.E. throughout his life. Mother would have screaming matches

with Father, and she has not had any “real contact” with Father for a couple years. Mother

testified that she would not be able to make parenting decisions together with Father.

¶ 29   Visitation exchanges took place through the school to avoid conflict with the other

parent. Mother lived two blocks from the school and K.E. would frequently walk home.

Mother testified that Father did not pick up K.E. from school for a month. Then, when
                                            9
Father attempted to pick up K.E. from school, K.E. ran away. After that incident, Father

only called Mother once or twice. Mother did not answer, and she did not hear from Father

again.

¶ 30     Mother testified that Father had a chance to fix his relationship with K.E. during the

time they spent together, but their relationship worsened. Mother believed that it was best

for K.E. if Father did not have visitation, regardless of the effect on K.E.’s relationship

with G.W. Mother additionally testified that K.E.’s maternal grandmother passed away,

and K.E. does not spend time with his maternal grandfather, uncle, or cousins.

¶ 31     Dr. Judy Osgood testified to her evaluation of K.E. Dr. Osgood first met K.E. in

January of 2017, when K.E. was seven years old. She evaluated K.E. at that time because

K.E. was going to start overnight visitation with Father and K.E. was exhibiting anxiety

and distress. Dr. Osgood explained that she first spoke to Mother, individually, to obtain

some background before meeting with K.E. She met with K.E. individually. After one

interview with K.E., Dr. Osgood diagnosed K.E. with PTSD. She never met with Father

and has never been contacted by Father.

¶ 32     Dr. Osgood testified that she met with K.E. a total of 12 times, from 2017 to 2021.

During those sessions, K.E. had disclosed anxiety and a fear of Father. K.E. felt like no

one would listen to his concerns regarding this case. When K.E. was required to speak to

the guardian ad litem (GAL) or another professional, Father and Lauren would confront

K.E. and “would be mad at him.” K.E.’s anxiety increased after those confrontations. When

Dr. Osgood last met with K.E. in 2021, K.E. indicated that he was afraid of Father. Father

                                               10
and Lauren would call K.E. “fat” and made fun of K.E.’s weight in front of other people,

which made K.E. feel like he should stop eating.

¶ 33   Dr. Osgood testified that K.E. was diagnosed with “parent-child relational

problem,” PTSD, and child psychological abuse due to remarks made by Father about

K.E.’s weight. In June of 2021, Dr. Osgood recommended that K.E. should not have

overnight visitation with Father until some progress could be made with K.E. feeling

supported by Father. At that time, Dr. Osgood had concerns about K.E.’s anxiety because

he was distressed and not sleeping.

¶ 34   Dr. Osgood recommended that K.E. have a licensed mental health therapist who

would not communicate with the court or with K.E.’s parents. She felt that it would be in

K.E.’s best interest to have parenting time with Father if there were changes in the

parenting time and in their relationship. Father needed to demonstrate empathy and

communicate with K.E. for K.E. to feel like Father understood and cared about K.E. K.E.

had shared positive experiences with Dr. Osgood about the time he spent with Father, such

as fishing together.

¶ 35   Dr. Osgood had not met with K.E. since 2021. She was unaware of whether K.E.’s

relationship with Father had improved since 2021, after the circuit court awarded 50/50

visitation. Dr. Osgood’s reports dated January 9, 2017, April 20, 2018, and May 20, 2019,

were admitted into evidence.

¶ 36   On cross-examination, Dr. Osgood acknowledged that the background information

she received was only from Mother’s version of what had occurred. Dr. Osgood was aware

that Mother had significant mental health issues. She was also aware that other
                                       11
professionals met with Mother, Father, and K.E. over the course of the case and that her

recommendations were different from the recommendations of the other professionals. Dr.

Osgood had reviewed the report from Dr. Kosmicki, the court appointed expert witness

that evaluated Mother, Father, and K.E. before the initial trial. Dr. Osgood agreed with Dr.

Kosmicki’s opinion that K.E.’s primary attachment and bond was with Mother, and to

drastically change that bond would be difficult for K.E. In her opinion, forcing a “big

change” could interfere with K.E.’s ability to “form a better relationship” with Father. Dr.

Osgood did not agree with every finding in Dr. Kosmicki’s report and Dr. Kosmicki’s

report was not offered into evidence.

¶ 37   After the circuit court conducted an in camera interview of K.E., the parties

presented closing arguments. On January 13, 2023, the circuit court entered its findings

and conclusions. The circuit court stated that it had considered the statutory factors set forth

in section 602.7 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS

5/602.7 (West 2022)) in reaching its decision. The circuit court found that in the last 24

months, and prior to that time, Mother was K.E.’s primary caretaker. Mother and Father

were unable to reach any agreements since K.E.’s birth. K.E. has positive memories with

family members in both Mother and Father’s households. The circuit court determined that

there was no conduct which would cause a parent to be unfit or cause a restriction of

parenting time. K.E. was not found to be abused by Father. The circuit court believed that

there was a “disagreement in parenting approach,” and both households needed to improve.

                                              12
¶ 38   The circuit court found that Mother should have a majority of parenting time and

sole decision-making responsibility. Mother was required to consult with Father on major

issues, at least twice within a 14-day period.

¶ 39   The circuit court was concerned with K.E.’s lack of relationships with family

members. K.E. missed his younger brother. The circuit court considered Dr. Osgood’s

testimony. The circuit court further determined that it was not going to “cut off a parent’s

fundamental rights to parent and never have that reestablished” where efforts were made

by Father. The circuit court also considered that the parties have “already stair-stepped this

along.” Father was awarded parenting time starting on Wednesday evenings. Parenting

time incrementally increased. Starting on March 6, 2023, Father was granted parenting

time every other Thursday from 4 p.m., until Sunday at 6 p.m., and every Wednesday

evening from 4 p.m. until 8 p.m. Both Mother and Father were granted two nonconsecutive

weeks in the summertime. This appeal followed.

¶ 40                                II. ANALYSIS

¶ 41   On appeal, Mother argues that the circuit court’s judgment was against the manifest

weight of the evidence where no restrictions were imposed on Father’s parenting time and

parenting time increased without requiring any evaluations as to the parent-child

relationship. Mother additionally argues that the circuit court erred in allowing testimony

from Lauren W. after witnesses were excluded from the courtroom and Lauren remained.

¶ 42   The allocation of parenting time is made in accordance with the child’s best interest.

750 ILCS 5/602.7(a) (West 2022). In allocating parenting time, the circuit court shall

consider all relevant factors, including (1) the parent’s wishes; (2) the child’s wishes;
                                           13
(3) the amount of time that each parent spent performing caretaking functions with respect

to the child in the 24 months preceding the filing of any petition for allocation of parental

responsibilities; (4) any prior agreement or course of conduct between the parents relating

to caretaking functions; (5) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parents

and siblings and with any other person who may significantly affect his best interests;

(6) the child’s adjustment to his home, school, and community; (7) the mental and physical

health of all individuals involved; (8) the child’s needs; (9) the distance between the

parents’ residences, the cost and difficulty of transporting the child, the parents’ and child’s

daily schedules, and the ability of the parents to cooperate in the arrangement; (10) whether

a restriction on parenting time is appropriate; (11) the physical violence or threat of

physical violence by the child’s parent directed against the child or other member of the

child’s household; (12) each parent’s willingness and ability to place the child’s needs

ahead of his or her own; (13) each parent’s willingness and ability to facilitate and

encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child;

(14) the occurrence of abuse against the child or other member of the child’s household;

(15) whether one parent is a sex offender or resides with a sex offender; (16) the terms of

the parent’s military family-care plan if a parent is a member of the United States Armed

Forces who is being deployed; and (17) any other factor that the court expressly finds to

be relevant. 750 ILCS 5/602.7(b) (West 2022).

¶ 43   A restriction of parenting time is appropriate if a parent’s conduct has seriously

endangered the child’s mental, moral, or physical health or significantly impaired the

child’s emotional development. 750 ILCS 5/603.10 (West 2022). The party seeking the
                                        14
restriction has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that conduct has

seriously endangered the child. 750 ILCS 5/603.10 (West 2022). The circuit court shall

enter an order as necessary to protect the child. 750 ILCS 5/603.10 (West 2022). The circuit

court may, when appropriate, order a reduction, elimination, or other alteration of parenting

time, including ordering supervised visits. 750 ILCS 5/603.10(a)(1) (West 2022). “A

reduction of weekend and summer visitation is not considered a restriction of visitation.”

In re Marriage of Ross, 355 Ill. App. 3d 1162, 1167 (2005). The circuit court may also

require a parent to complete treatment for perpetrators of abuse, drug or alcohol abuse, or

for other behavior or order. 750 ILCS 5/603.10(a)(8) (West 2022).

¶ 44   “Sound public policy encourages the maintenance of the parent-child relationship,

and only in extreme circumstances may courts deprive a parent of visitation.” In re

Parentage of K.E.B., 2014 IL App (2d) 131332, ¶ 31. A circuit court’s allocation of

parenting time will not be disturbed unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

In re Marriage of Virgin, 2021 IL App (3d) 190650, ¶ 45. The circuit court is afforded

great deference in allocating parenting time because the circuit court is in the best position

to assess the credibility of the witnesses to determine the child’s best interest. In re

Marriage of Virgin, 2021 IL App (3d) 190650, ¶ 45.

¶ 45   The circuit court considered the statutory factors pursuant to section 602.7(b) of the

Act (750 ILCS 5/602.7(b) (West 2022)) in making its determination. Mother and Father’s

wishes, along with K.E.’s desires, were also considered by the circuit court. Mother and

Father lived near each other and close to school, where the visitation exchange took place.

K.E.’s grades were improving, and he was involved in extracurricular activities. After the
                                          15
initial trial, Father had overnight visitation for half of the time for a six-month period.

During that time, K.E. went on vacation with Father’s family, fished, and enjoyed other

activities with Father. K.E. missed spending time with his half-brother when K.E. stopped

spending time with Father.

¶ 46   Mother argues that the circuit court erred by not restricting Father’s visitation time.

The circuit court observed the witnesses and considered that “both households need to

improve their parenting approach.” After our last decision was issued, Father confronted

K.E. about visitation. Testimony was presented that K.E. and Father’s relationship suffered

because of Father’s reactions to K.E.’s responses during their conversations. We agree with

Mother that Father’s nickname for K.E. and the decision to mock K.E.’s physical

appearance is concerning. Nevertheless, we must assume that the circuit court took this

issue into consideration, along with all of the evidence and the factors outlined above, and

we cannot say that the circuit court’s ruling regarding visitation is erroneous.

¶ 47   Mother has not established that Father’s conduct seriously endangers K.E. Dr.

Osgood last saw K.E. in 2021, prior to the six-month period when K.E. spent a significant

amount of time with Father. K.E. has not received therapy or attended any counseling

sessions since Father exercised visitation after the initial trial. The circuit court considered

the testimony of the witnesses, including Dr. Osgood, and determined that K.E. was not

subjected to physical violence, or threat of physical violence, at Father’s home.

¶ 48   Mother, in the alternative, claims that the circuit court should have generally

reduced the amount of time K.E. spends with Father on the weekends and during summer

break. The circuit court determined that the majority of parenting time should be spent with
                                             16
Mother. The judgment awarded Father a couple hours of parenting time a week and

incrementally increased visitation time to three overnight visits every other weekend. The

circuit court’s decision in awarding this schedule of visitation time to Father is not against

the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 49   In our review of this order, we do note that the requirement of notice as it relates to

significant decisions may be unworkable. Mother was granted sole decision-making

responsibility, but has to give Father notice at least twice in a 14-day period. In the event

of an emergency, this is obviously not a workable solution. Therefore, pursuant to our

authority under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994), we hereby amend

that portion of the circuit court’s order to read as follows:

        C. Respondent (mother) shall be the sole decision maker with respect to all
       major decisions however, to the extent possible, mother must discuss each
       major decision with father on at least two occasions over a period of 14 days
       before making a final decision. 2

¶ 50   We next turn to Mother’s argument of whether the circuit court erred in allowing a

witness to testify who remained in the courtroom after the rule of witnesses was invoked.

A circuit court possesses the discretion to exclude witnesses from the courtroom during a

trial. In re D.L., 226 Ill. App. 3d 177, 187 (1992). The purpose of removing witnesses from

the courtroom is to discourage fabrication and prevent a witness from shaping their

testimony to conform to the testimony of other witnesses. Smith v. City of Chicago, 299 Ill.

App. 3d 1048, 1053 (1998); see Ill. R. Evid. 615 (eff. Jan. 1. 2011) (“At the request of a

party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of

       2
           The italicized words represent the changes to the circuit court’s order dated January 13, 2023.
                                                      17
other witnesses ***.”). The burden of proof is on the party alleging error to show prejudice

resulting from the circuit court’s decision to allow a witness to testify. People v. Wiatr, 119

Ill. App. 3d 468, 473 (1983).

¶ 51   Here, the circuit court allowed Father’s wife, Lauren, to remain in the courtroom

during the trial based on the representations by each of the parties that only Mother, Father,

and K.E. were going to testify. After Lauren heard a substantial portion of Father’s

testimony, the parties discussed having additional witnesses testify. Father then decided to

call Lauren as a witness to testify on Father’s behalf. Subsequent to this disclosure, the

circuit court removed Lauren from the courtroom for the remainder of Father’s testimony.

¶ 52   Mother fails to explain how Lauren’s testimony was prejudicial. Lauren had

testified during the first trial. We do not find any evidence that Lauren altered her testimony

to conform with Father’s testimony or to rehabilitate Father’s testimony. Without some

showing of prejudice, we cannot say that Mother’s claim that she was prejudiced by the

circuit court’s decision to allow Lauren to testify after she had remained in the courtroom

for a portion of Father’s testimony was an abuse of the circuit court’s discretion.

¶ 53                              III. CONCLUSION

¶ 54   For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of White County

as modified.

¶ 55   Affirmed as modified.

                                              18