In re MARRIAGE OF AMY K. McCORMICK, Petitioner-Appellee,
DAVID A. McCORMICK, Respondent-Appellant. and
The trial court’s finding of no contempt in respondent’s second postdecree contempt proceedings based on petitioner’s violations of the visitation order entered in the parties’ dissolution action was affirmed, notwithstanding the fact that the appellate court reversed the trial court’s finding of no contempt entered on respondent’s first contempt proceeding based on allegations of similar violations, since the violations in the second proceeding were less severe and petitioner was under the reasonable belief that her behavior was not contemptuous until the finding in the first proceeding was reversed; however, in the future, petitioner should be aware that any new violations would be deemed contumacious.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, No. 04-D-1073; the Hon. Joseph J. Bruce, Judge, presiding
David A. McCormick, of Yorkville, appellant pro se.
No brief filed for appellee.
JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Burke and Justice Schostok concurred in the judgment and opinion.
¶ 1 Respondent, David A. McCormick, initiated his second postdecree contempt proceedings against his former spouse, petitioner, Amy K. McCormick, based on violations of an underlying visitation order. On his first postdecree contempt petition, the trial court entered a finding of no contempt. Amy continued to violate the visitation order, though it would be fair to characterize her subsequent violations as less severe. Therefore, the subsequent violations did not demonstrate a willful disrespect of the order, and we hold that the trial court did not err in entering a second finding of no contempt. This is so even though this court later determined that the trial court erred in denying the initial contempt petition. Accordingly we affirm.
¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 3 This appeal concerns the trial court's order, entered December 29, 2011, finding that Amy was not in contempt for conduct occurring between August 11, 2011, and October 26, 2011. However, an earlier violation period and contempt proceeding provides context to Amy's allegedly contemptuous behavior at issue in this appeal, and so we begin our recitation of the facts there.
¶ 4 A. Initial Contempt Proceeding:
Subject of In re Marriage of McCormick, 2013 IL App (2d) 110894-U
¶ 5 David filed a petition for rule to show cause on July 20, 2010, and an amended petition on January 14, 2011. In the amended petition, David alleged that Amy had repeatedly and willfully violated the visitation order. David, who lived 80 minutes away from Amy and their sons, alleged that he missed 43 visits with one son, 39 with another, and 19 with the third. The court asked David to present evidence of the incidents that seemed most serious to him.
¶ 6 The incidents included: (1) Amy allowed two of the boys to miss David's scheduled 2008 New Year's Eve celebration in favor of a sleepover with friends; (2) Amy allowed one of the boys to miss an extended, two-week summer visit in favor of football practice; (3) Amy allowed two of the boys to miss a scheduled Easter visit in favor of sporting activities; and (4) Amy allowed one of the boys to miss a scheduled camping trip in order to participate in a dodgeball tournament, even though, due to the boys' recent vacation with Amy, David had not seen them ...