In re Marriage of Armstrong , 2021 IL App (3d) 200278-U ( 2021 )

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as
precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2021 IL App (3d) 200278-UOrder filed December 23, 2021
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2021
In re MARRIAGE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit,
GLEN M. ARMSTRONG, SR., ) Will County, Illinois.
)
Petitioner-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-20-0278
and ) Circuit No. 13-D-585
)
COURTNEY D. ARMSTRONG, )
) The Honorable
Respondent-Appellant. ) Derek W. Ewanic,
) Judge, presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE delivers the judgment of the court.
Justices O’Brien and Lytton concur in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: Respondent’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
¶2 Following a hearing in Will County, the circuit court entered an order regarding
Respondent Courtney Armstrong’s parenting time and continued the case, setting a date for a
status hearing. Before the scheduled date, respondent filed her notice of appeal. For the reasons
that follow, we find we lack jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal.
¶3 FACTS
¶4 On May 22, 2013, the circuit court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage of
Petitioner Glen Armstrong and Respondent Courtney Armstrong. An appeal was filed, but this
Court dismissed it prior to any briefing on the merits.
¶5 After six years of litigation in the circuit court on various issues pertaining to parenting
time and child custody, Glen filed a petition requesting specific findings of abuse of allocation of
parenting time by Courtney. On July 13, 2020, the circuit court heard testimony from both
parties on the petition and considered the pleadings of the parties. The same day, the court issued
an order instanter resolving the issue presented in the petition.
¶6 In its order, the court found that Courtney’s “actions were not in the best interest of the
minor child and that she had no intention of following the court orders.” The court then ordered
that (1) Courtney turn over the child immediately to Glen; (2) Glen pick up the child on July 13,
2020; (3) Courtney not impede the child’s return to Glen; (4) law enforcement officers in Aurora,
Illinois, or any jurisdiction in Illinois assist in returning the child to Glen; and (5) the case be
continued to August 4, 2020, for a status hearing on Courtney’s compliance with the order and
for determining her visitation rights.
¶7 On July 27, 2020, Courtney filed a notice of appeal, citing no Illinois Supreme Court
Rule under which appellate jurisdiction is asserted. The same day, she filed an amended notice of
appeal and again cited no basis for appellate jurisdiction.
¶8 ANALYSIS
¶9 Courtney filed a brief in which she argues that the circuit court erred in finding that her
actions were not in the best interests of the minor child. She contends that the trial court failed to
meet the standard of best interest of the child. Glen filed a responsive brief, which, on this
2
Court’s own motion, was stricken for failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 341. This
Court directed Glen “to file a proper brief” and set a date by which he must do so. However, no
subsequent brief was filed.
¶ 10 Although, neither party has raised a challenge to our jurisdiction on appeal, a reviewing
court has a duty to consider sua sponte whether it has jurisdiction and to dismiss an appeal if it
lacks jurisdiction. In re Marriage of Morgan, 2019 IL App (3d) 180560, ¶ 9. “Our jurisdiction is
limited to review of appeals from final judgments unless otherwise permitted under Illinois
Supreme Court rules or by statute.” Id.¶ 11 A circuit court’s resolution of a petition relating to allocated parenting time is final and
appealable where it disposes of all the merits of the underlying litigation. In re A.M., 2020 IL
App (4th) 190645, ¶ 23. However, where the record shows that “matters remained pending
between the parties, aside from the enforcement of the court’s judgment” and no order or rule
allows the matter to proceed otherwise, appellate jurisdiction is lacking. Although the court
granted immediate custody of the minor child to Glen, it did not resolve Courtney’s rights as to
visitation and future custody. Instead, the court continued the case to resolve those issues. Under
these circumstances, no final appealable order has been entered. Nor has Courtney tendered a
Supreme Court Rule 304(a) finding or asserted any basis for an interlocutory appeal.
Accordingly, there is no cognizable basis for this Court’s exercise of Jurisdiction.
¶ 12 CONCLUSION
¶ 13 For the foregoing reasons, we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal and we dismiss
respondent’s appeal.
¶ 14 Appeal dismissed.
3