In re Marriage of Betsy M., 46 N.E.3d 373

Parties: Betsy (mother) awarded sole custody; John (father) received limited, supervised visitation under an October 29, 2013 stipulated custody judgment.
Visitation under the judgment: brunch every other week with an "extra set of hands," and tennis lessons for one child; John had not seen the children from April 2013 until visits began in March 2014.
John filed a Motion to Increase/Modify Parenting Time (June 2, 2014), seeking substantially more unsupervised time and eventual alternate weekends/overnights.
Trial court appointed a limited 604(b) evaluator (Dr. Palen) to assess whether increased parenting time served the children’s best interests; trial occurred January 2015 with testimony from evaluators, therapists, parents, a supervisor, and the children.
On February 9, 2015 the court increased John’s visits from one hour to three hours every other week (kept other restrictions), and denied further expansion; April 17, 2015 the court denied John’s motion to reconsider and certified the order as final and appealable. John appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (John)	Defendant's Argument (Betsy)	Held
Standard of review for modifying stipulated visitation	Trial court should apply the "serious endangerment" standard before restricting visitation; applying best‑interest was error	Because John sought more time (not restriction) to modify a stipulated schedule, best‑interest standard applies	Court held best‑interest standard governs modifications to stipulated visitation; serious‑endangerment inapplicable here
Whether trial court abused its discretion by partially granting the motion (only modest increase)	Court erred by applying wrong standard and thus abused discretion	Court relied on 604(b) evaluation and evidence showing children’s resistance; modest increase was appropriate	No abuse of discretion; three‑hour increase affirmed
Jurisdiction to hear the appeal	(implicit) appealable as orders modifying custody/visitation	Orders were final and appealable (trial court certified finality)	Appellate court found it had jurisdiction under custody/visitation appeal rules
Weight to give 604(b) evaluator's recommendation	John implied evaluator’s opposition shouldn’t control; he highlighted his therapy progress	Betsy and trial court relied on evaluator (Dr. Palen) concluding greater time not in children’s best interests	Trial court may rely on 604(b) evaluator; its reliance was within discretion

In re Marriage of Chehaiber, 394 Ill. App. 3d 690 (Ill. App. Ct.) (interpreting section 607 scheme: serious‑endangerment applies to initial restriction; section 607(c) modifications governed by best interests)
In re Marriage of Koenigsknecht, 302 Ill. App. 3d 474 (Ill. App. Ct.) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Heldebrandt v. Heldebrandt, 251 Ill. App. 3d 950 (Ill. App. Ct.) (example where appellate court treated modification as a restriction and applied serious‑endangerment standard)
In re Marriage of Diehl, 221 Ill. App. 3d 410 (Ill. App. Ct.) (modification that clearly restricted visitation required serious‑endangerment standard)
In re Marriage of Solomon, 84 Ill. App. 3d 901 (Ill. App. Ct.) (trial court’s restriction of visitation beyond original agreement required serious‑endangerment finding)
In re Marriage of Anderson, 130 Ill. App. 3d 684 (Ill. App. Ct.) (same: restriction of visitation mandates serious‑endangerment standard)