Marriage of Marshall, In re

Citation215 Ill.Dec. 599,663 N.E.2d 1113,278 Ill.App.3d 1071
Decision Date04 April 1996
Docket Number3-95-0535,Nos. 3-95-0530,s. 3-95-0530
Parties, 215 Ill.Dec. 599 In re MARRIAGE OF Kathy Sue MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, and Sheldon Nussbaum, Respondent-Appellee (Heidi Nussbaum and Rachel Nussbaum, Contemnors-Appellants).
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois, No. 93-MR-6538; Honorable Ludwig J. Kuhar, Judge, Presiding.

Catherine Connolly, Karen Conti, Gregory A. Adamski (argued), Adamski & Conti, Chicago, for Kathy Sue Marshall.

Richard B. Orloff (argued), Mason, Orloff, Reich, Troy & Thanas, Joliet, for Sheldon Nussbaum.

Benjamin S. Wolf, The Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., Chicago, Bruce A. Boyer, Children & Family Law Center/NU Law School, Chicago, Jonathan K. Baum, Jaye Quadrozzi, Katten, Muchin & Zavis, Chicago, for Amicus Curiae.

Denise Grabavoy, Guardian Ad Litem, Bolingbrook, for Heidi Nussbaum, and Rachel Nussbaum.

Justice LYTTON delivered the opinion of the court:

These consolidated appeals arise from a dispute over child visitation. The mother, Kathy Marshall, appeals from the denial of her petition to modify the visitation rights of the father, Sheldon Nussbaum. Kathy and Sheldon's minor children, Heidi and Rachel, appeal a circuit court finding that they were in direct civil contempt for refusing to go to North Carolina to visit Sheldon. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the ruling denying modification of visitation, affirm the finding of contempt against the minors, but reverse the sanctions imposed and remand for further proceedings.

I. FACTS

Kathy and Sheldon were married in January 1982, and resided in North Carolina. The couple had two children. Heidi was born in December 1982, and Rachel was born in December 1986. In February 1990, the couple separated and Kathy commenced dissolution proceedings.

The record shows that, from the onset, the litigation between Kathy and Sheldon was acrimonious. Each party alleged that the other was guilty of physical and psychological abuse. In three separate pleadings--filed in May 1990, April 1991 and December 1991--Sheldon alleged that Kathy was improperly denying him visitation.

Kathy moved with the children to Illinois in November 1991. A judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered in North Carolina in 1992. In a separate order, entered in April 1993, Kathy was awarded custody of the children. Under the visitation schedule, Sheldon was to have the children in North Carolina for five to six weeks in the summer, every Christmas and every other spring break.

The girls visited their father during the summer of 1993 and for about a week at Christmas; however, Kathy did not send the girls for their spring break visit in April 1994. Sheldon brought a contempt action in North Carolina. In May 1994, Kathy filed a petition in the circuit court of Will County, Illinois, seeking to enroll the North Carolina judgment and restrict Sheldon's visitation rights. Sheldon brought another contempt action when the girls did not come to North Carolina for their summer visitation in 1994.

On September 28, 1994, the North Carolina court declined to exercise further jurisdiction and transferred Sheldon's contempt actions to Illinois to be heard with Kathy's petition to modify.

In late February and early March 1995, an extended hearing was held in the circuit court of Will County. Kathy presented the testimony of a psychologist, Dr. Eleanore A. Ryan. Ryan testified that she was contacted by Kathy in February 1994. Kathy told her that Heidi had been experiencing behavioral problems both at home and at school in the past month. Kathy also reported that Heidi had recently run away from home.

Ryan met with Heidi on February 26, 1994. Heidi said that during the recent Christmas visitation in North Carolina, her father woke her up every night and said that it was father/daughter time. Heidi told Ryan that her father would keep her up until 4:00 in the morning. Heidi said that her father also kept her up nights during the summer visitation in 1993. Heidi also told Ryan she had received a rifle from her father for Christmas, and they went hunting. She claimed that her father forced her to shoot a bird. Heidi told Ryan that she began hearing voices after this visit with her father.

Ryan met with Heidi a second time on March 12, 1994. At this meeting, Heidi said that she was afraid of her father and she was concerned about the upcoming spring break visit. Heidi expressed the fear that if she went to North Carolina, her father would not allow her to return to Illinois. Based on Heidi's fears, Dr. Ryan recommended to Kathy that neither child go to North Carolina for the visit scheduled to start April 1, 1994.

In the meantime, Sheldon had mailed airline tickets to Kathy. Kathy did not call Sheldon until the morning the children were to leave for North Carolina. Sheldon had already gone to the airport.

Ryan met with Heidi nine more times between April 1994 and the hearing in February 1995. During these meetings, Heidi claimed that her father repeatedly stated that her mother and maternal grandparents were evil. He said things would be better if she came and lived with him. Heidi related that her father made her repeat things over and over. Heidi also told Ryan that she had run away from home on February 19, 1994, because her father had told her to do so.

At the hearing, Ryan opined that Heidi was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from contacts with her father. Ryan testified at the hearing, "I feel that to schedule any kind of visitation at this point would be very threatening for Heidi, would reduce the feelings of security that she currently has." Ryan testified she interviewed Rachel on three occasions in late 1994 and early 1995. She diagnosed Rachel as suffering "adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features." Ryan opined there should be no visitation with the father at that time.

Kathy Marshall testified that she noted behavioral differences in Heidi following the Christmas visit in 1993. After the February 19, 1994, incident in which Heidi ran away from home for several hours, Heidi began telling her mother that she was hearing voices. Kathy decided to seek professional help and contacted Dr. Ryan.

Kathy also testified that Heidi had told her about an incident, during the 1993 Christmas visit, when Sheldon was going to spank Rachel for crying for her mother. Heidi said that she grabbed her father's arm and told him not to spank Rachel. Heidi stated that her father chased her until she hid behind a waterbed, where he tried to hit her with a stick.

Heidi asked Kathy not to send her back to North Carolina. Heidi stated that she was afraid of her father and he said she would not be allowed to return to Chicago.

On cross-examination, Kathy conceded that just prior to Heidi running away, Heidi had been grounded by her mother for failing to give Kathy a note from Heidi's gym teacher. Kathy also conceded that it made no sense for Heidi to run away to be with her father if she was afraid of him.

Sheldon Nussbaum testified to events surrounding the girls' visitation in the summer of 1993 and at Christmas. Sheldon testified he took each of the girls hunting during their Christmas visit. He took the girls out separately; when he went with seven-year-old Rachel, they did not take any guns. Sheldon denied giving Heidi a rifle, although he did let her use one of his guns. He said it was Heidi's idea to shoot the bird.

He admitted waking Heidi up, but testified that this was at Heidi's request because she wanted to stay up later than Rachel. Therefore, after Rachel would fall asleep, Heidi would get up. Heidi and he would eat popcorn, watch videos and "shoot the bull." Sheldon said that they may have discussed Kathy Marshall, but he denied telling Heidi that her mother and grandparents were evil.

Sheldon also confirmed the incident where he went to spank Heidi and she hid behind the waterbed. He stated that he tried to get her to come out from behind the headboard by "[laying] a guilt trip on her."

He testified that he spoke with Heidi on either February 18 or February 19, 1994. Heidi told him that she planned to run away from home. She was upset because she had been grounded. Heidi went into detail about her plans to run away, but Sheldon did not consider it a serious threat since she said she only planned to hide in the shed or go to a friend's house. He advised her that if she was going to leave she should go to her friend's house. He then tried calling the next day and got no answer. Sheldon further testified that after February 19, he noted a change in Heidi's attitude toward him.

The court interviewed Rachel and Heidi in camera. Rachel stated that she "kind of missed" seeing her dad. She spoke of being spanked when she cried for her mother. Rachel also stated that her father said he was going to keep them in North Carolina and not let them see their mother again.

Heidi told the judge that she did not want to see her father. She said that she ran away in February 1994 because her father told her to run away. She claimed to be afraid of her father. She described how her father spanked Rachel for crying. Heidi stated that when she tried to prevent her father from spanking Rachel, her father backhanded her and she got a black eye.

Heidi spoke about the late-night conversations in which her father said that her mother and grandparents were wicked and everyone on her mother's side of the family molested each other. Heidi claimed that she began hearing voices after her summer visit in 1993. She did not tell her mother about the voices because she was afraid her mother would think she was crazy. Heidi told the court she would run away if ordered to go to North Carolina.

On May 10, 1995, the circuit court issued an order denying Kathy's petition to modify visitation. The court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • In re Wrobel
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Seventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 12 Junio 1996
    ...... Kaplan entered an order amending the January 8 order to reflect that the fees had been awarded pursuant to section 508(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution Act. See Datlow's Exhibit No. 13 and Debtor's Exhibit No. 12. These fees were the only penalty assessed against the Debtor as a ... In re Marriage of Marshall, 278 Ill.App.3d 1071, 215 Ill.Dec. 599, 606-607, 663 N.E.2d 1113, 1120-21 (3d Dist.1996); Ramsell, 266 Ill.App.3d at 299, 203 Ill.Dec. at 827, 640 ......
  • In re Marriage of Mitchell
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 2 Marzo 2001
    ......In re Marriage of Solomon, 84 Ill.App.3d 901, 908, 40 Ill.Dec. 197, 405 N.E.2d 1289 (1980).         In spite of these admonitions, while some courts have upheld the rights of parents to enforce visitation with their children (see, e.g., In re Marriage of Marshall, 278 Ill.App.3d 1071, 215 Ill.Dec. 599, 663 N.E.2d 1113 (1996)), we are aware of no case that has recognized a reciprocal right of children to enforce visitation with a parent. The comments to the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, on which Illinois' Act is based, state, without elaboration, ......
  • In re Marriage of Charous, 2-06-0084.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 13 Septiembre 2006
    ...judgment merely because his or her children do not desire to visit the noncustodial parent. See In re Marriage of Marshall, 278 Ill.App.3d 1071, 1082-83, 215 Ill.Dec. 599, 663 N.E.2d 1113 (1996); Doggett v. Doggett, 51 Ill.App.3d 868, 871-72, 9 Ill. Dec. 474, 366 N.E.2d 985 (1977). Where a ......
  • In re Marriage of Charous, No. 2-06-0084 (Ill. App. 9/13/2006)
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 13 Septiembre 2006
    ....... Illinois courts have held that a custodial parent may not disregard the visitation requirements of a dissolution judgment merely because his or her children do not desire to visit the noncustodial parent. See In re Marriage of Marshall, 278 Ill. App. 3d 1071, 1082-83, 663 N.E.2d 1113, 215 Ill. Dec. 599 (1996); Doggett v. Doggett, 51 Ill. App. 3d 868, 871-72, 366 N.E.2d 985, 9 Ill. Dec. 474 (1977). Where a dissolution judgment places the ultimate responsibility for compliance with the visitation provisions upon the custodial ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Book Reviews
    • United States
    • Journal of Marriage and Family No. 62-2, May 2000
    • 1 Mayo 2000
    ...daughters to visit their father,in violation of the divorce decree visitation sched-ule (re: Marriage of Marshall, 278 Ill. App. 3d1071, 663 N.E.2d 1113; 1996). The two girls alsorefused to visit their father. Over the course of anumber of hearings, the trial judge interviewedthe girls seve......

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