Background
Caitlyn O’Brien and Joshua Guynn have two minor children. After the parties separated in Illinois, they initially followed an informal shared-parenting arrangement. O’Brien later took the children to Florida in violation of temporary parenting-time orders, resulting in a contempt finding. She returned the children to Illinois and thereafter traveled between Florida and Illinois to exercise parenting time.
O’Brien subsequently petitioned under section 609.2 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act for permission to relocate with the children to Florida. After a two-day trial, the circuit court considered the statutory relocation factors and found that relocation was in the children’s best interests. Guynn, representing himself on appeal, argued that the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that his trial counsel had been ineffective.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed because Guynn forfeited every appellate argument by failing to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7). Although his brief discussed some evidence and occasionally cited the record, its argument section cited no relevant legal authority—not even the statute governing relocation. His self-represented status did not excuse compliance with the appellate briefing rules.
The court also identified defects in Guynn’s statement of the standard of review, jurisdictional statement, and statement of facts. It nevertheless independently confirmed jurisdiction under Rule 301 because the final order resolved all issues and Guynn filed a timely notice of appeal. The court added that, even absent forfeiture, the trial evidence did not clearly require denial of relocation, and Guynn could not pursue an ineffective-assistance claim in this civil proceeding because no statutory right to counsel applied.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant forfeits arguments that are unsupported by citations to relevant legal authority, even when some factual argument and record citations are provided.
- Self-represented litigants must comply with the same mandatory appellate briefing requirements as attorneys.
- A civil litigant generally cannot assert ineffective assistance of counsel unless a statute guarantees the right to counsel.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that appellate courts will enforce Rule 341’s briefing requirements when reviewing fact-intensive family-law decisions. An appellant challenging a relocation ruling must develop a legally supported argument addressing the governing statute, the applicable standard of review, and the trial record.
The decision was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).