In Re Marriage of Wade, 946 N.E.2d 485

Petitioner filed for dissolution of marriage in November 2007 and May 2008, asserting irreconcilable differences and seeking custody and division of marital property.
Respondent answered with a counterpetition, alleging desertion, mental cruelty, and adultery, and requesting sole custody, maintenance, and attorney fees.
In May 2010 petitioner moved to bifurcate the dissolution judgment, citing prolonged separation and delays affecting the children and marital estate.
Respondent and a child representative opposed or supported bifurcation at various times; the record shows ongoing disagreements and attorney changes contributing to delays.
June 22, 2010, the circuit court granted bifurcation, finding appropriate circumstances to protect the children from harm and noting the custody trial would occur soon while financial matters were unlikely to be resolved promptly.
The court entered a bifurcated judgment of dissolution on irreconcilable differences, reserving other issues for future proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether bifurcation was justified by appropriate circumstances	Wade argues bifurcation is warranted due to prolonged, contentious proceedings harming children.	Wade contends no appropriate circumstances were present and bifurcation was inappropriate.	Yes; the court did not abuse its discretion; bifurcation justified to protect children's well-being.
Whether the circuit court abused discretion in granting bifurcation notwithstanding the Cohn framework	Wade asserts the court relied on factors outside Cohn's list and misapplied discretion.	Wade argues the decision rests on improper grounds and prejudices respondent.	No; discretion was exercised properly within and beyond Cohn's framework to protect children.
Whether due process was violated by basing the ruling on grounds not raised in the motion	Petitioner contends grounds aligned with motion; no new basis was used.	Respondent asserts grounds were not raised and thus due process was violated.	No; the basis cited by the court matched the motion and due process was not violated.

In re Marriage of Cohn, 93 Ill.2d 190 (1982) (bifurcation not unfettered; enumerated and non-enumerated appropriate circumstances)
In re Marriage of Bogan, 116 Ill.2d 72 (1986) (bifurcation justified by same-caliber circumstances as listed in Cohn)
In re Marriage Kenik, 181 Ill. App.3d 266 (1989) (recognizes consideration of emotional well-being in bifurcation)
In re Marriage of Blount, 197 Ill.App.3d 816 (1990) (bifurcation upheld to protect emotional status of party)
Copeland v. McLean, 327 Ill.App.3d 855 (2002) (court's substantial discretion in bifurcation decisions)
Partipilo v. Partipilo, 331 Ill.App.3d 394 (2002) (recognizes bifurcation aids case progression when warranted)