Jameson v. Williams

Decision Date26 June 2020
Docket NumberAppeal No. 3-20-0048
Citation444 Ill.Dec. 855,165 N.E.3d 501,2020 IL App (3d) 200048
Parties Eric R. JAMESON, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Courtney R. WILLIAMS, Respondent-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Joseph M. Borsberry, of Borsberry Law Offices, P.C., of Peoria, for appellant.

Elisa M. Nelson, of Law Office of Nelson & Associates LLC, of Galesburg, for appellee.

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

¶ 1 The circuit court entered an order allocating to the petitioner, Eric R. Jameson, primary parental decision-making authority for educational and healthcare decisions and the majority of parenting time. The respondent, Courtney R. Williams, appealed, arguing that the court's rulings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On October 22, 2018, Eric filed a petition to establish a parent-child relationship, parenting responsibilities, and parenting time with A.J. (born September 25, 2017), the child whom he had with Courtney. In the petition, Eric sought sole decision-making responsibilities and primary residential parent status with majority parenting time.

¶ 4 The parties entered into an agreed order on December 18, 2018, under which they would "have shared care, decision making, control and right to direct the secular and religious education of [A.J.] on a temporary basis." They also temporarily agreed, inter alia , to follow the advice of the minor's primary care physician if they could not agree on any healthcare decision. Regarding visitation, they agreed to alternate weeks with the minor. While Eric was working during the week, Courtney, who was unemployed, would have the minor between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Additionally, they agreed that no right of first refusal would exist for the other parent if one parent was unable to exercise his or her scheduled parenting time. In addition, the parties also agreed to a mutual stay-away order.

¶ 5 One day later, Courtney filed a response to Eric's petition, as well as a counterpetition, which sought, inter alia , sole decision-making responsibilities and a majority of the parenting time.

¶ 6 During the pendency of the petitions, the acrimonious nature of the dispute became evident. The parties filed for orders of protection against each other. At one point, the circuit court had ordered the parties not to communicate unless an emergency arose with the minor. The court also ordered exchanges to occur in the McDonough County Sheriff's Department lobby. Courtney had relocated to Springfield, causing Eric to file a petition to contest that relocation. Additionally, in June 2019, Eric filed a petition to enforce the temporary order of December 2018, alleging that Courtney had withheld the minor from Eric for scheduled visitations and failed to adhere to requirements for exchanges.

¶ 7 On October 9, 2019, Eric filed an emergency petition to modify parenting time and parental responsibilities. He alleged, inter alia , that Courtney was now living in a dry cleaning business in Macomb that did not have a bathtub, shower, or kitchen; that Courtney's mother had expressed to Eric concerns about Courtney's mental health "due to witnessing instances of verbal abuse and threats made against the child's well-being"; and that Courtney had unilaterally decided to cancel an appointment for the minor with her primary care physician and scheduled an appointment with another doctor. Additionally, Eric expressed concern about the minor's hygiene while in Courtney's care, as Courtney had returned the minor to Eric after a six-hour visit in the same diaper that the minor was wearing at the initial exchange, in improper clothing, with permanent marker on the minor's body, and with a full diaper with rash on multiple occasions.

¶ 8 The circuit court held a hearing on Eric's emergency motion and entered an order on November 5, 2019, in which Eric was "allocated significant decision-making authority" and a majority of the parenting time. Courtney was given parenting time during Eric's work hours on Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., as well as alternating weekends on Saturday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and on Sunday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. The court also ordered Courtney to obtain a mental health evaluation by December 2, 2019. Courtney did obtain that evaluation, which was unremarkable.

¶ 9 The circuit court held a bench trial in December 2019 at which Eric had representation, but Courtney proceeded pro se . Eric called several witnesses whom he knew personally through his job as a funeral director and his role as the McDonough County coroner. Generally, these witnesses testified that Eric's residence was clean and appropriate and that he was a good parent. None of these witnesses had seen any inappropriate parenting by Courtney. One of these witnesses, a business partner at one of the funeral homes that Eric owned, testified that he and Eric did not have a regular schedule and would have to answer calls to remove remains at irregular hours.

¶ 10 The remaining witnesses were as follows. Eric testified on his own behalf, and he also called the minor's primary care physician. Courtney testified on her behalf, and she also called her friend, Candace Bainter. For continuity, the testimony of these witnesses will appear mostly in relation to particular topics, rather than strict chronological order.

¶ 11 Eric testified that he lived in Macomb in a three-bedroom house and was 49% owner of a company that ran funeral homes in Macomb and Bushnell. He was also in his third term as the McDonough County coroner. In that role, he was involved in approximately 250 cases per year in which investigations were performed into the circumstances surrounding deaths. Approximately 100 of those cases required him to be at the scene. Depending on the circumstances, he could be on the scene for as little as 20 minutes or as long as 8 hours or more. In his role as county coroner, Eric had nine deputies working for him who have been able to take late night calls.

¶ 12 In his role as funeral director for the two funeral homes, his usual hours were weekdays from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Visitations could also occur on weeknights, but he would typically be home by 8:15 p.m. on those nights. Visitations and funerals would also be held on weekends. Eric did not work all of the visitations. Another employee had been taking most of the calls about deaths during weeks that he had the minor. When he has had to take late night calls, he had been able to secure a sitter—he would call his mother or sister—and the minor would continue to sleep through the night uninterrupted. Since October 23, 2019, Eric had two calls that he had to attend to at night. On both of those occasions, Eric's mother came over to watch the minor, who did not wake.

¶ 13 Eric stated that early on in the life of the case (Eric and Courtney split up in September 2018), Courtney had demanded a right of first refusal when he had to take late night calls. He tried accommodating that request, doing so on four or five occasions. However, doing so required waking the minor and transporting her to Courtney.

¶ 14 At times, Eric would bring the minor to work with him, including times when Courtney did not show up for the morning exchange and instead dropped her off with Eric at his workplace. Going forward, he expressed a desire to have the minor attend daycare while he was at work. He had also contemplated using an au pair or live-in nanny to help with times that he would have to take calls at night. Alternatively, he would continue to use family members to care for the minor at those times. In addition, he testified that he also had several babysitters that he used at other times.

¶ 15 Regarding Courtney's living situation post-breakup, Eric testified:

"Initially, she had moved or was staying at her former stepfather, Scott Collins' place here in Macomb, and then from there, she went and moved in with her friend, Mercedes Seitz. Mercedes and her [sic ] had a falling out of some sort, and she was asked to leave there. Then she went to an apartment, I believe, on Maple Avenue here in Macomb. From there, she went and stayed in a hotel for a period and then with her friend, Anna, at a trailer park here in Macomb, and then she went and lived in Springfield with her mom. Before she went with her mom, she stayed at—she rented a house on Dudley Street. Stayed there for just a couple days and then left and went to Springfield and then came back and was with her friend, Anna. She lived at her former business at the dry cleaner, and then now *** she has an apartment now somewhere here in town."

Eric stated that his concerns with the places in which Courtney had lived were due to there not being any dedicated space for the minor, including the dry cleaning business, which lacked kitchen and bath facilities and had just one room at the back in which Courtney stayed with her son and the minor. On cross-examination, Eric acquiesced that the hotel stay occurred before the residence on Maple Avenue. When Courtney testified, she stated that she had four residences, not eight, as she did not actually move into four of the aforementioned places. The circuit court noted that, at the hearing on Eric's emergency petition, Courtney had said that she had eight residences post-breakup.

¶ 16 Eric also testified that Courtney had withheld the minor from him on numerous occasions. He alleged that he saw the minor only for a few hours on Christmas in 2018, that Courtney withheld the minor from him on Easter in 2019, and that he did not see the minor at all on July 4, 2019. On Memorial Day weekend in 2019, Eric's sister came to town from Chicago, and Courtney did not show up for the regularly scheduled exchange on that Friday. Courtney did not respond to Eric's attempts to contact her. In the Spring of 2019, Eric's family was having a weekend reunion approximately eight hours away. He asked if she would be willing to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • In re Marriage of Whitney H.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 18, 2021
    ...the circuit court's decision simply because a different conclusion may have been drawn from the evidence." (Emphasis added.) Jameson, 2020 IL App (3d) 200048, ¶ 51. To be sure," [w]here the evidence multiple inferences, we will accept those inferences that support the trial court's order." ......
  • In re Marriage of Mardi L. A.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 7, 2023
    ...time unless the court's findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Jameson v. Williams, 2020 IL App (3d) 200048, ¶ 47, 165 N.E.3d 501; In re of G.L., 2017 IL App (1st) 163171, ¶ 24, 80 N.E.3d 636. ¶ 54 "Under the manifest weight standard, an appellate court will affirm the tr......
  • Michael C. v. Amber B.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 16, 2021
    ...Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill.2d 316, 328, 518 N.E.2d 1041, 1046 (1988); see also Jameson v. Williams, 2020 IL App (3d) 200048, ¶¶ 47, 53, 165 N.E.3d 501 (noting both the circuit ruling on the allocation of parenting time and decision-making responsibilities will not be disturbed unless they ......
  • In re Marriage of Kopecky
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 2, 2023
    ... ... court's decision simply because a different conclusion ... may have been drawn from the evidence." Jameson" v ... Williams , 2020 IL App (3d) 200048, ¶ 51, 165 N.E.3d ... 501. Accordingly, we give the court's findings ... appropriate deference ...  \xC2" ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT