In re Marriage of McCormick, 995 N.E.2d 529

David filed postdecree petitions alleging Amy willfully violated the divorce court’s visitation order (missed visits, vacations, holidays, and scheduled weekends).
In the first contempt proceeding (period ending Aug. 11, 2011) the trial court found Amy not in contempt; David appealed and this court later reversed that initial no-contempt finding on the merits.
While that first appeal was pending, between Aug. 11 and Oct. 26, 2011, three weekend visits were missed or curtailed (Labor Day weekend and two other dates) largely because the sons refused to go or had work/tryout commitments.
The trial court heard David’s second contempt petition and again found Amy not in contempt for the Aug. 11–Oct. 26, 2011 period, viewing the violations as less severe and occurring after the court’s prior no-contempt statement.
On appeal of the second finding, the appellate court affirmed: it emphasized the relevancy of the procedural posture (Amy’s reasonable belief, from the trial court’s earlier ruling, that her conduct was permissible) and that the later violations were not sufficiently willful and contumacious.

Issue	David's Argument	Amy's Argument	Held
Whether Amy’s missed visits Aug. 11–Oct. 26, 2011 constituted indirect civil contempt	The missed visits were violations of the visitation order and, given prior violations, were willful and warrant contempt	Amy’s conduct was not willful; her actions reflected responses to children’s refusals, job/tryout conflicts, and the trial court’s earlier guidance that her conduct was not contemptuous	Affirmed: no contempt — violations were less severe, influenced by children’s choices and prior trial-court feedback, so not willful disobedience
Whether the appellate court should reverse the trial court despite its earlier ruling that Amy was not in contempt	David urged reversal consistent with appellate ruling that the first no-contempt finding was erroneous	Amy relied on the trial court’s earlier no-contempt finding and its misleading message that she could second-guess the schedule	Court reviewed the second period in context of the trial court’s initial ruling and declined to reverse; future violations may be treated as contumacious

In re Marriage of Knoerr, 377 Ill. App. 3d 1042 (procedural considerations for appealing contempt rulings)
In re Marriage of Tatham, 293 Ill. App. 3d 471 (definition and proof requirements for indirect contempt)
In re Marriage of Charous, 368 Ill. App. 3d 99 (burden shifts once violation is proven; contumacious conduct defined)
In re Marriage of Logston, 103 Ill. 2d 266 (standard of review for contempt findings as factual determinations)
In re Marriage of Kuhn, 221 Ill. App. 3d 1 (considering procedural posture and appellate efforts when evaluating contempt)
First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128 (proceed without appellee’s brief when record and issues are clear)
In re Marriage of Barile, 385 Ill. App. 3d 752 (discussion of standards applied to findings of fact in family-law contempt contexts)