Marriage of Johnson, In re

• Decision Date: 30 September 1981
• Docket Number: No. 81-65,81-65
• Citation: 427 N.E.2d 374,56 Ill.Dec. 294,100 Ill.App.3d 767
• Parties: , 56 Ill.Dec. 294 In re the MARRIAGE OF Nancee Kay JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellee, and Gordian Glenn Johnson, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 374

427 N.E.2d 374

100 Ill.App.3d 767, 56 Ill.Dec. 294

In re the MARRIAGE OF Nancee Kay JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellee and Gordian Glenn Johnson, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 81-65.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

Sept. 30, 1981.

Sorling, Northrup, Hanna, Cullen & Cochran, Ltd., Springfield (Elizabeth A. Evans and A. Clay Cox, Springfield, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Hal Alexander, Taylorville, for petitioner-appellee.

JONES, Justice:

Following a bench trial in the circuit court of Christian County, petitioner, Nancee Kay Johnson (wife), was granted a dissolution of marriage from respondent, Gordian Glenn Johnson (husband). Husband appeals only that portion of the order which requires that his visitations with the parties' minor child be supervised.

The parties were married on June 5, 1976, and one child was born of the marriage, a son who was born on October 31, 1976. On April 25, 1980, the wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage which alleged that the husband had been guilty of extreme and repeated acts of physical and mental cruelty.

At trial it was undisputed that during the course of the marriage the husband had repeatedly taken and misused several types of drugs, including some drugs prescribed by his physician. The husband's use of drugs increased with marital, financial and academic difficulties, and after the parties had separated this misuse culminated in several voluntary overdoses of valium, which had been prescribed for him by a physician. Husband testified that in the two months preceding the hearing he had ceased all improper use of drugs and had taken a substantial step toward full recovery. At the time of the hearing it was undisputed that the husband, who had an associate's degree in psychology, was employed as an activity therapist at the Springfield Mental Health Center. In that capacity the husband was working with chronic schizophrenics and depressives and was receiving $3.50 per hour for a 40-hour work week. It was also undisputed that the husband himself had been receiving therapy from Dr. Patrick Brophy, a certified psychologist with both clinical and teaching experience.

Dr. Brophy testified on the husband's behalf, stating that prior to the hearing he had seen the husband on eleven occasions, averaging approximately one hour per visit. Brophy stated that the husband was starting to drop some of his adolescent habits, including "the recreational use of drugs." Brophy concluded that the son would not be endangered by the husband's unsupervised visitation. Brophy admitted that in making his prognosis he had not been informed of the extent to which the husband had previously used drugs; however, he stated that such information would be unlikely to change his prognosis.

In contrast to Brophy's testimony, the wife offered the testimony of the husband's adoptive father, Alfred Westrick. Westrick stated that he had taken over custody of the husband when he had been orphaned at age 15. He had maintained a close relationship with the husband, and he detailed some of the problems the husband had had with drug overdoses. Although Westrick admitted that he was not aware of the husband's current emotional outlook, it was his opinion that the husband should not be allowed unsupervised visitation at that time. Westrick stated that he was more fearful of neglect by the husband than of any intentional abuse.

In addition to the evidence concerning the husband's experience with drugs, there was extensive evidence concerning the husband's violent nature and suicidal tendencies. Although the husband denied virtually all of the wife's allegations, the wife testified at length concerning the many times the husband had threatened to take not only his own life but that of his wife and child. According to the wife, the husband was holding firearms when several of the threats were made. The wife also testified about the many times she had been physically abused by the husband. She stated that when she was eight months pregnant the husband had kicked her causing her to fall out of bed. She also told of one incident in which he had grabbed her by the hair and had begun throwing her head against the wall, then threw her to the floor and began choking her. She stated that much of her body had been bruised as a result of that incident and that it took several weeks for some torn ligaments to heal. The wife also testified that shortly after the separation she had tried to keep the husband from being alone with their son, but the husband responded by chasing her out of the house. According to the wife, the husband not only hit her as he chased her but also threw a lamp at her. The wife stated that she had run to a neighbor's house, only to have the husband knock her against the door of that home. The neighbor also testified to having seen the husband hit the wife, but the husband claimed otherwise, stating that he had slapped his wife and then chased her to the neighbor's home. He denied striking her in front of the neighbor's home. The wife also detailed how the husband had spanked their son at least weekly even though the child was well behaved.

Following the presentation of this evidence the court addressed the husband, stating:

"There isn't any basis here that, that you are the stable person that should have a child to take care of during this time. There's a further evidence of suicidal tendencies * * *. Now as I said to you, perhaps it is coming, maybe you are being stabilized but the evidence certainly doesn't show it at this time. And for this reason I would not allow unsupervised visitation."

The court ordered all visitation to be supervised for six months and that at the end of that time the order would be reviewed. The husband appeals.

On appeal the husband correctly points to a series of cases in which it has been stated that Illinois law favors liberal visitation. (Frail v. Frail (1977), 54 Ill.App.3d 1013, 12 Ill.Dec. 680, 370 N.E.2d 303; Hock v. Hock (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 583, 8 Ill.Dec. 639, 365 N.E.2d 1025; Blazina v. Blazina (1976), 42 Ill.App.3d 159, 1 Ill.Dec. 164, 356 N.E.2d 164; McManus v. McManus (1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 645, 348 N.E.2d 507.) The husband contends that the trial court failed to comply with this policy only because of his limited financial support of the...