Full Opinion

2026 IL App (4th) 260130-U NOTICE FILED This Order was filed under November 5, 2026 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-26-0130 Carla Bender not precedent except in the 4th District Appellate limited circumstances allowed IN THE APPELLATE COURT under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT JEREMY T., ) Appeal from the Petitioner-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Rock Island County KIMBERLY S., ) No. 13F78 Respondent-Appellee. ) ) Honorable ) Derek L. Hancks, ) Judge Presiding. JUSTICE GRISCHOW delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Knecht concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The appellate court reversed and remanded (1) the trial court’s modification of the allocation of parenting time and parental responsibilities, finding the court failed to make any findings pursuant to either section 610.5(a) or 610.5(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/610.5(a), (c) (West 2024)) to warrant consideration of modification of the original agreed parenting plan; (2) the court’s decision to deviate downward from the child support guidelines based upon the payor’s personal obligations to pay other fees; and (3) the court’s decision to order a party to pay half of the guardian ad litem fees when a fee waiver had already been granted for that party and the court failed give the party 10 days’ notice of a hearing and the specific reasons why the waiver might be reconsidered, in accordance with section 5-105(f-10) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/5-105(f-10) (West 2024)). ¶2 This appeal involves the following issues: whether the trial court erred in (1) determining it was in the teenage daughter’s best interests to modify the allocation of parenting time and parental responsibilities in the original agreed parenting plan without first making any findings that modification was warranted pursuant to either section 610.5(a) or 610.5(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Marriage Act) (750 ILCS 5/610.5(a), (c) (West 2024)), (2) deviating from the statutory child support guidelines based solely upon its consideration of the payor’s personal obligations to pay her attorney fees and a portion of the guardian ad litem (GAL) fees, and (3) ordering a parent to pay half of the GAL fees when he had already been granted a waiver of court fees and was not given notice and hearing regarding the specific reasons the waiver might be reconsidered, in accordance with section 5-105(f-10) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Procedure Code) (735 ILCS 5/5-105(f-10) (West 2024)). In addition, a pending motion to supplement the record on appeal was taken with the case. For the reasons that follow, we deny the motion to supplement the record, and we reverse and remand the case with directions. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 A. Original Proceedings and the March 27, 2013, Agreed Order ¶5 The parties, respondent, Kimberly S., and petitioner, Jeremy T., are the parents of G.L.T. (born July 2011). Though never married, they lived together in Moline, Illinois, until February 2013, when their relationship ended and Kimberly moved in with her parents in Colona, Illinois. Paternity of G.L.T. was established by consent, and on March 27, 2013, an agreed order regarding parental responsibilities and parenting time was entered. The parties agreed to joint legal custody with shared physical care according to a “3-1-2, 3-2-2 rotating [parenting time] schedule.” Rather than setting a specific time for the custody exchanges, the schedule attached to the order, exhibit A, referred to exchanges occurring “after w/s” meaning after work/school. In several paragraphs of the order, the language used referred to parenting time commencing “after work or school.” The order also contained a schedule of alternating holidays, shared birthday time, and plans for scheduling vacation time. The parties agreed neither -2- would pay child support at that time, Jeremy would maintain health insurance for the child through his employer, and they would each pay half of school-related expenses and uncovered medical expenses. Kimberly was granted the right to claim G.L.T. as a dependent for tax purposes. ¶6 In 2016, Kimberly filed a petition to modify the March 27, 2013, agreed order, asking for the majority of parenting time and parental responsibilities, for her home to be designated the child’s primary address, and for changes to the holiday and vacation schedules. Jeremy filed an emergency motion seeking to enroll G.L.T in kindergarten in the East Moline, Illinois, school district, where she could continue to participate in the daycare program she had been in while in preschool rather than the Geneseo, Illinois, schools preferred by Kimberly. Kimberly’s petition to modify was denied by the trial court due to her failure to show a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of the original order. Further, the court ordered G.L.T. be enrolled in the East Moline School District. During this time, Jeremy and Kimberly signed a document agreeing that G.L.T. would be enrolled in the Geneseo School District, and Jeremy intended to relocate to be closer to those schools. In 2017, Jeremy moved to Colona, Illinois nearer to Kimberly, who lived with her parents (Marsha and Bruce S.) and within the Geneseo School District. The parties continued to operate under these terms for many years until they returned to court in 2024. ¶7 B. Subsequent Enforcement and Modification Proceedings ¶8 In July 2024, Jeremy filed a pro se petition for rule to show cause, contending Kimberly was in violation of the March 27, 2013, agreed order. By this time, G.L.T. was 13 years old. Jeremy claimed Kimberly refused to allow G.L.T. to go to his home on days when he was not working or she was not in school and described several incidents between November -3- 2023 and June 2024. He explained two incidents when he was scheduled to have parenting time on a day when G.L.T. had the day off from school and he was not working. Kimberly refused to allow Jeremy to exercise parenting time with G.L.T. in the morning and instead told him to come back at 3 p.m., the time when school would normally end. He described another occasion when G.L.T. was sick and did not go to school and Kimberly informed him that she would be keeping her another day. On that day, G.L.T. texted Jeremy and asked him to pick her up early. When G.L.T. left the house to go with Jeremy, her grandmother physically tried to stop her, but G.L.T. ran outside. Jeremy also described problems at G.L.T.’s school bus stop when he and G.L.T.’s grandparents would simultaneously be there to pick her up. If Kimberly was at work, she would send the grandparents to the bus stop to pick up G.L.T. and care for her until she got home from work. Jeremy, who was not working at the time, would be there to pick up G.L.T. because the grandparents were not “listed to pick up on her behalf” and he believed the time from bus pick up until Kimberly came home from work was “his time.” There were instances when Kimberly filed “report[s] for safe pick up” with the police, which Jeremy characterized as false police reports. An order for rule to show cause was issued against Kimberly. ¶9 On July 29, 2024, Kimberly, represented by counsel, filed the following: (1) an “Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Application for Preliminary Injunction,” seeking, inter alia, to prohibit Jeremy from “manipulating the intent” of the parenting schedule and “unilaterally deciding when his parenting time commences”; (2) a “Motion to Waive Mediation,” citing Jeremy’s hostility toward her and their inability to effectively communicate as reasons to forgo mediation; and (3) a “Petition to Modify the Allocation of Parental Rights [and] Responsibilities, Parenting Time[,] and Child Support.” In the petition, Kimberly sought modification of the March 27, 2013, agreed order, including the -4- allocation of majority parenting time to her, allocation of sole decision-making responsibility in all areas to her, establishing set exchange times and designation of people allowed to pick up the minor child, establishing more clearly defined holiday breaks, and ordering child support after imputing a reasonable income to Jeremy. ¶ 10 On August 9, 2024, the trial court entered an order granting the waiver of mediation and denying Kimberly’s application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court’s order also established 9 a.m. exchange times for some upcoming days when G.L.T. would not be in school and allowed each parent to designate a known person to assist in exchanges. At the hearing on the motion, Jeremy explained that on days when Kimberly worked but parenting time switched to her, Jeremy would pick up G.L.T after school and Kimberly would then pick up G.L.T. at his home after work. The disputes began when G.L.T.’s maternal grandparents began arriving at the bus stop to pick up G.L.T. on behalf of Kimberly. Kimberly’s attorney argued “it doesn’t make sense for—for [G.L.T.] to get dropped off at the bus stop, to go to [Jeremy’s] for an hour, hour and a half, whatever it may be, until [Kimberly] gets off of work.” G.L.T. expressed she did not want to go with her grandparents but preferred to go with Jeremy. The court ordered any exchange involving Kimberly’s parents must occur at the police department and ordered the parties not to discuss the case, or allow any family members to discuss the case, with the minor and appointed Karri Belvel as GAL. ¶ 11 On August 27, 2024, Jeremy filed pro se a response to Kimberly’s petition to modify the allocation of parenting rights and responsibilities, parenting time, and support. He argued it was in G.L.T.’s best interests that he be awarded full custody, but he was “okay with the minor child expressing her concerns and will listen to the minor child to allow the minor child to stay with [Kimberly] if the minor child” informs him of the dates she would like to visit -5- her mother. He proposed a schedule providing him all day-to-day parenting time with alternating holidays. He also proposed G.L.T. could choose how to spend time during spring and winter breaks from school, and suggested Kimberly receive two weeks of parenting time for vacation during summer but that G.L.T. could “decide if she wants to go” to Kimberly’s home during the offered summer vacation time. ¶ 12 Jeremy also filed a second petition for rule to show cause, alleging Kimberly was in violation of the August 9, 2024, order. A rule to show cause was issued against Kimberly. ¶ 13 C. The Hearing on the Enforcement and Modification Petitions ¶ 14 On September 12, 2024, the trial court entered an order setting all pending matters for hearing. Kimberly was represented by counsel, and Jeremy continued to represent himself. The hearing took place on 10 days over a 10-month period, between January 22, 2025, and October 20, 2025. Volumes of evidence were presented, including numerous body-worn videos from police officers, personal cell phone videos, and 1,571 pages of exhibits. Those exhibits included G.L.T.’s medical records; a voluminous amount of text messages, predominantly between Jeremy and Kimberly, Jeremy and G.L.T., and screenshots of texts between Kimberly and G.L.T; photographs; police incident reports; e-mails; letters from police officers responding to Jeremy’s formal complaints; and court transcripts, including the transcripts from the emergency stalking no contact order proceedings against the grandparents. ¶ 15 Kimberly’s attorney waived an opening statement and noted to the trial court that Jeremy’s petition for rule to show cause was filed before Kimberly’s petition for modification, suggesting Jeremy should present evidence first. Jeremy elected to make an opening statement, focusing his comments on (1) the 2016 ruling, wherein the court maintained the status quo under the original March 27, 2013, agreed order, finding Kimberly had failed to prove a substantial -6- change in circumstances to justify changes to that order and (2) the violations of the March 27, 2013, agreed order, which result from a disagreement about what “after w/s” meant. ¶ 16 1. In Camera Interview With G.L. ¶ 17 During an in camera interview, the trial court explained to G.L.T. they were trying to figure out if the parenting-time schedule and decision-making authority of her parents should be changed, and that the court was supposed to consider her wishes and the reasons behind them, among other factors. G.L.T. described the parenting-time schedule and acknowledged it was “complicated.” She said her parents lived close to one another and the current schedule was “working out fine, but [she] would prefer for [her] dad to have [her] more days.” She explained she has more privacy at his home than at her mother’s house, where people do not knock before coming into her room or the bathroom, though that had recently improved. G.L.T. stated her bedtime was 7:30 p.m. at her mother’s house until it was recently changed to 9:30 p.m. She explained she had become “very irritated” with her grandmother in the past few years because she makes G.L.T. uncomfortable by touching her hair and not respecting her privacy. ¶ 18 G.L.T. explained her father’s house is a “more relaxed environment” and her mother’s house feels “cramped” because they live with her grandparents. She is allowed to have friends over at her mother’s house, but not sleepovers, but she does not like to do so anyway because she does not feel like herself at her mother’s house. G.L.T. stated she does not really trust her mother or grandmother, but she does trust her father and stepmother “better.” When asked to describe the difference between how she feels at her mother’s house versus her father’s house, she explained that at her mother’s house, they see her as an introverted person, but that is not true. She explained she presents herself “that way kind of in a masking way.” She stated she -7- does not know why she feels the need to do that, but she had done it for a long time. ¶ 19 The trial court asked G.L.T. about her experience seeing a therapist and asked whether she thought attending therapy with her mother would be helpful. G.L.T. stated she did not think it would really change anything, but she would be open to it in the future. She explained that when she has told her mother how she feels, her mother has responded in a “manipulative” way and made her feel guilty. She described her mother’s reactions when she shared how she felt, with her mother saying, “ ‘I won’t let my own daughter blackmail me.’ ” G.L.T. described a conversation when Kimberly expressed, “ ‘I would like to be there for all your proms and stuff,’ ” and, “ ‘[D]on’t you want me there?’ ” G.L.T. responded, “ ‘My opinion is neutral either way if you were there or not,’ ” and Kimberly retorted, “ ‘Ouch. Yeah, that stinges—that singes. [sic] How could you be so cruel?’ ” G.L.T. said she was just being honest, but she felt bad afterwards and it was not her intention to hurt her mother. G.L.T. stated she became very upset and began to cry and asked if she could go to her father’s house for a couple of hours to relax and calm down. Kimberly told her no and, “ ‘If I let you go over there, you’re not going to want to come back, and you’re going to—we’re going to get—and the police involved,’ or something like that.” G.L.T. acknowledged both of her parents were attentive to her performance in school, supportive of her interests, and took care of her. G.L.T. said she loves her stepmother and gets along with her very well. ¶ 20 G.L.T. described two incidents of her mother physically punishing her. One incident was when G.L.T. was six years old and she stuck her tongue out at her mother; her mother made contact with her that caused her tongue to bleed; and according to G.L.T., her mother later told her father that G.L.T. stuck her tongue out in a “FU kind of way.” The other incident occurred in the kitchen when G.L.T. was “being bratty” to her grandmother for putting -8- mushrooms in her omelet when she did not want them. Her mother raised her hand to strike G.L.T., and G.L.T blocked it. Her mother continued to yell at her. G.L.T. stated that at the time of the in camera interview, her mother did not raise her voice as much, and they were able to sit down and talk if G.L.T. was in trouble. She stated she usually does not get in trouble over “small things” at her father’s house, and she feels “respect that goes both ways” at his home. ¶ 21 The judge asked G.L.T., “[I]f I said to you—and I’m not. Let’s say I said this, ‘I’m tired. I don’t want to mess with this. Just tell me what you want to do, and that’s what we’ll do.’ What would be the schedule you’d want?” G.L.T. responded she would like her father to have full custody, and she would visit or stay at her mother’s house maybe once during the week. When asked if she would want to be with her mother every other weekend, G.L.T. responded, “That’d be fine with me, but I just definitely would like to have my dad to have more time.” G.L.T. told the judge she was aware that her father’s demeanor may be “aggressive and protective, but that’s only because he has [her] best interest in mind, and he can’t help that,” and it “doesn’t rub off on [her] in any way.” G.L.T. stated she did not feel pressured by either parent to make any statements. She explained she has wanted to spend more time with her father “ever since [she] was little.” ¶ 22 G.L.T. described the incident when she was scheduled to go to her father’s house after school but did not go to school because she was sick. G.L.T. explained she “did not like that” when her mother told her she would not be going to her father’s house if she had a fever, so she texted her father to ask him to pick her up. She described “bolt[ing]” for the door when her father arrived and her grandmother grabbing the hood of her sweatshirt to try to stop her from leaving. G.L.T. described this as “[her] bad” for not telling her grandmother she was leaving, but she knew her grandmother would not let her go. The trial court asked G.L.T. about the -9- circumstances surrounding the order of protection against her grandparents due to the incidents at the bus stop. G.L.T. explained that both her father and grandparents would show up to pick her up after school, but she did not want her grandparents there, so she would leave with her father. ¶ 23 2. Police Officers’ Testimony and Body-Worn Camera Videos ¶ 24 Jeremy called multiple police officers who responded to various disputes regarding the parenting-time exchanges. The testimony elicited from the officers and the body- worn camera videos illustrated the animosity between the parties during those exchanges, most notably at the bus stop after school. Jeremy endeavored to establish that the officers showed up to enforce the March 27, 2013, agreed order and the subsequent orders clarifying custody- exchange procedures without having read the orders. The officers explained their role was to keep the peace and document the incidents in reports, and the interpretation of the court orders was a civil matter the parties must handle in court. ¶ 25 Several “personal videos” recorded by Jeremy were admitted into evidence, as well. Those videos, along with the body-worn camera videos, showed the ongoing dispute regarding the interpretation of the “after w/s” language in the March 27, 2013, agreed order, which resulted in many conflicts about parenting-time exchange days and times. In one body- worn camera video, Jeremy, who was not working at the time, arrived in the morning on a nonschool day to pick up G.L.T., but Kimberly refused. He was told he must come back at 3 p.m., the time which Kimberly interpreted as being after school. The officers documented the dispute and stated the court order should be addressed in court. In another body-worn camera video, Kimberly arrived with police for pick up after having informed Jeremy she would be picking up G.L.T. in the morning on a Friday to begin her parenting time and leave for a vacation. Jeremy stated there was no school that day and Kimberly was not working, indicating - 10 - she was not following her own interpretation that the pick-up time defaulted to 3 p.m. At other times, Jeremy and the maternal grandparents both arrived at the bus stop to pick up G.L.T. after school. In several personal videos, Jeremy or his wife purported to document the grandparents waiting at the bus stop on days that Jeremy had parenting time with G.L.T. Sometimes they would confront the grandparents, expressing concern that the grandparents were interfering with the court orders and causing distress to G.L.T. In at least one video, Jeremy asserted that because Kimberly was working, G.L.T. should go to his home after school until Kimberly could pick her up after work, and the grandparents asserted they were picking up G.L.T after school on behalf of Kimberly. ¶ 26 A body-worn camera video dated March 4, 2026, was shown to the trial court, wherein Jeremy reported G.L.T.’s maternal grandmother physically restrained G.L.T. as she was leaving the house to get into his car. He explained Kimberly informed him that G.L.T., who was not in school that day, would not be available for scheduled parenting time with him because she was sick and had a fever. Jeremy stated G.L.T. sent him text messages informing him Kimberly left the house and she did not know why, she was home with her grandparents, and she wanted to go to his house right away instead of waiting until 3 p.m. Jeremy arrived around 1:40 p.m. to pick up G.L.T., and when G.L.T. was exiting Kimberly’s home, her grandmother put her hands on G.L.T. in an effort to stop her from leaving. Jeremy told the officer he intended to seek an order of protection on behalf of G.L.T. and wished to pursue criminal charges against Marsha. G.L.T. explained what happened and confirmed that her grandmother tried to pull her back as she was leaving the house. The police went to Kimberly’s home to inquire about the incident. Kimberly, who was not home when the incident occurred, stated Jeremy was supposed to pick up G.L.T. at 3 p.m., but she told him she would not allow G.L.T. to go with him if she still had a - 11 - fever. Marsha stated she saw Jeremy pull into the driveway, and G.L.T. came running down a hallway toward the door. Marsha stated she put her hand out and said, “No, no” Marsha explained G.L.T. was wearing a hoodie, and she made a hand motion as if she were holding on to it, but then stated, “I didn’t touch her.” G.L.T. said, “Get off me,” and ran out of the house and got into Jeremy’s car. She later admitted she grabbed the hood of G.L.T.’s sweatshirt. Kimberly and Marsha laughed when the officer stated Jeremy wanted to pursue criminal charges against Marsha. ¶ 27 Kimberly called Sarah VanHollebeke, formerly a police officer with the Colona Police Department. She testified as to multiple encounters she and Officer Emily Duran had with Jeremy, Kimberly, and the grandparents, all revolving around parenting-time exchanges. Officer VanHollebeke described meeting Kimberly outside Jeremy’s residence on Thanksgiving Day in 2023 because Kimberly had arrived to pick up G.L.T., but no one answered the door. According to the incident report, police contacted Jeremy, who informed them he had made arrangements with Kimberly to take G.L.T. out of town for the holiday, so Kimberly was filing a false police report. Officer VanHollebeke confirmed that the March 27, 2013, agreed order provided that if the parent who had Thanksgiving Day parenting time wished to travel out of the area to attend an extended family member’s Thanksgiving, that parent would have the entire time from Wednesday until the regular schedule resumed on Sunday evening. ¶ 28 The following week, on December 1, 2023, Officer VanHollebeke had multiple encounters with the parties: (1) at the bus stop when G.L.T. got off the bus and went home with Jeremy instead of her grandparents because Kimberly was still at work, (2) when Kimberly arrived at Jeremy’s house to pick up G.L.T. after work, and (3) later that evening when Jeremy requested a welfare check on G.L.T. at Kimberly’s home. The body-worn camera video from - 12 - each of these incidents is in the record. ¶ 29 Regarding the third incident when Officer VanHollebeke arrived for the welfare check, G.L.T. was upset and crying. Officer VanHollebeke asked G.L.T., in the presence of Kimberly, if she feared for her safety while in the custody of her mother and grandparents. G.L.T. paused and said, “No.” She then asked if G.L.T. would like to speak privately, and she said, “Yes.” ¶ 30 Officer VanHollebeke assured G.L.T. she was not in trouble and explained her father was concerned, because of the earlier events, G.L.T.’s mother would “take that out” on her. G.L.T. responded that it was true, and she began to cry more and said in a hushed voice that she thought her mother would be mad and yell at her because she left the bus stop with her father instead of her grandparents. Officer VanHollebeke asked G.L.T. if she would yell at her “outside more than like a normal disciplinary situation.” G.L.T. responded, “I mean she would yell pretty loud” and was “cussing.” When asked if she felt safe with her mother and just did not agree with how she does things, G.L.T. did not respond. G.L.T. then brought up the incident that occurred in the kitchen when Kimberly attempted to slap her for making a comment about the meal, but G.L.T. blocked her hand. Officer VanHollebeke said she assumed G.L.T. did not think her mother was abusing her, and G.L.T. said, “I don’t think so.” She had a conversation with G.L.T. about the difference between discipline and abuse. G.L.T. did not describe any other incidents but said her mother had tried to smack her a couple of times. Officer VanHollebeke explained, “I’m not a parent who smacks their children okay, so I can’t speak to that but what I can tell you unfortunately in the State of Illinois or fortunately—whoever you speak to—corporal punishment is okay—the law says that you can discipline your child that means spank them— that doesn’t—there is a fine line between discipline and abuse.” G.L.T. replied, “Yeah, so then I - 13 - don’t think it would be abuse.” ¶ 31 Officer VanHollebeke suggested to G.L.T. if a conversation with one of her parents gets uncomfortable, she should ask to stop and resume it at another time. She also suggested if G.L.T. ever feels unsafe or something like the “slapping situation” happens, she should say, “Please don’t put your hands on me—and if that doesn’t settle it down then we’ll have to regroup and figure something else out—okay.” She told G.L.T it is not her job to “parent her parents,” and if she needed help, she should ask her counselor or reach out to her parents, grandparents, or the police. Officer VanHollebeke followed up with Jeremy, informing him that G.L.T. was safe and recommending the parties handle these matters through their attorneys, consider meeting at a neutral location for parenting-time exchanges, and seek counseling assistance. ¶ 32 3. Andrea T.’s Testimony ¶ 33 Andrea T., Jeremy’s wife, testified that she loves G.L.T. and has a good relationship with her as her stepmother. She stated she noticed G.L.T. was not as happy, her grades had “slipped a bit,” and she was often reluctant to go to Kimberly’s home, all beginning in the summer of 2024. Andrea confirmed she felt safe with Jeremy and denied that he yells a lot. She observed a very strong bond between G.L.T. and Jeremy. Andrea was disappointed she was not interviewed by the GAL but the grandparents were. When G.L.T. enters their home, they hug her, G.L.T. gets a snack, and she starts her homework or unwinds. They watch movies together, and she and Jeremy go places with G.L.T. and her friends. She acknowledged she gave the GAL report to G.L.T. to read. Andera admitted to talking to G.L.T. about her relationship with Kimberly and her grandparents. She stated she has never “talk[ed] bad” about Kimberly to G.L.T., but she has expressed she was “really sorry” about her grandparents “coming to the bus - 14 - stop and pressuring [her] into choosing between [Jerremy] and them.” Andrea testified she observed Jeremy being “harassed in text messages” by Kimberly; this occurred on Andrea’s birthday, when Kimberly had been informed that they had plans. ¶ 34 4. Bruce’s Testimony ¶ 35 Bruce, G.L.T.’s grandfather, testified about the interactions at G.L.T.’s bus stop, acknowledging he and his wife called the police several times because they believed they “were being verbally harassed and assaulted” by Jeremy. Bruce testified he and his wife went to the bus stop to pick up G.L.T. “day after day” because Kimberly, with approval of counsel, asked them to and they believed they were “acting in her place.” Jeremy had asked them not to show up. When asked by the trial court, Bruce explained they had done so approximately nine times, mostly on Tuesdays, on the days where parenting time would transition. G.L.T would always go with Jeremy. Bruce explained that once Jermey obtained a temporary order of protection against them, they did not go to the bus stop while that was in place. When asked his interpretation of “after w/s,” Bruce said he was not sure what it meant. ¶ 36 Bruce stated he had not been around Jeremy very often, and when they do attend a function at the same time, they sit on opposites sides, and he acknowledged “it’s peacefully.” He stated Kimberly does not pay rent, and they have “no intentions for her to move out.” He observed Kimberly raise her voice to G.L.T. when she acted inappropriately, but he never witnessed any physical altercation between them or Kimberly yelling or screaming at her. Bruce testified he believed it was in G.L.T.’s best interests that she live in his home with her mother and that G.L.T. had lived with them for her entire life. He stated that he provided a “very stable home,” and he, his wife, and Kimberly spend time with G.L.T., “back her education,” and “try to help her out socially, too, with her friends, try to get them together as much as we possibly can.” - 15 - Bruce testified that G.L.T. has seemed happy living with them, and she has never told him she is unhappy with her mother or that she dislikes her grandmother. He stated he believed Kimberly is “wonderful mother.” He stated Kimberly, Marsha, and he did not talk negatively about Jeremy in G.L.T.’s presence. ¶ 37 5. Marsha’s Testimony ¶ 38 Marsha, G.L.T.’s grandmother, testified that when she told the police it was “our time” with G.L.T. while waiting for her at the bus stop, she was referring to herself and her husband because Kimberly was working. She acknowledged she is not mentioned in the March 27, 2013, agreed order, and there is no provision for third-party pick up. Marsha acknowledged that she occasionally touched G.L.T.’s hair and told her it was “greasy.” She explained she stopped doing that because G.L.T. said it bothered her. Marsha testified G.L.T. “came to us approximately when she was 18 months old” and has lived with them since. Marsha testified she did not remember telling the police that G.L.T. was scared of her father; she was then shown a video wherein she tells an officer, “I think she’s scared of him.” ¶ 39 Marsha testified she did not believe G.L.T. was old enough or mature enough to state where she wants to live or where she feels most comfortable. She stated G.L.T. lied to police when she said Kimberly tried to smack her. She also denied telling G.L.T. she and her grandfather were sad when she did not get into their car at the bus stop after school. She testified about providing childcare for G.L.T. over the years and that she was familiar with some of G.L.T.’s friends, but her friends did not come over to their house. Marsha acknowledged waiting at the bus stop for G.L.T. after school many times before the order of protection was put in place. She and Bruce would not get out of the car. Marsha stated she was “very surprised” to hear that G.L.T. has issues being in their home. She acknowledged the parenting-time schedule was - 16 - complicated; in the past, she had watched G.L.T. after school until Jeremy got off work on his day for parenting time; and Jeremy and Kimberly sometimes agreed to change their parenting- time days. ¶ 40 Referring to the day when she tried to prevent G.L.T. from leaving with her father when she was sick and home from school, Marsha said G.L.T. was “pretty much” at a “full run” when she grabbed the hood of her sweatshirt. She did not believe she injured G.L.T. by doing so. She stated she was surprised because G.L.T. would not normally bolt out of the house without them knowing she was leaving. Marsha said her “heart started racing” and she thought, “[Jeremy] took her. He drove away with her without being—unannounced. And I thought—like a kidnapping.” She said she was “stunned” and thought, “Are we going to see her again?” When asked whether 69 visits to the walk-in clinic between the ages of 3 and 13 years old suggested Kimberly was a hypochondriac, Martha responded, “If a kid is sick, the child is sick.” Marsha testified she was surprised when Jeremy asked if Bruce or anyone in their family was a pedophile. She stated they both volunteer at their church working with children and have been subjected to routine background checks for many years. ¶ 41 6. Jeremy’s Testimony ¶ 42 Jermy testified he stopped working in July 2023 due to an undisclosed disability. His disability claim was denied twice, and he did not know the status of his appeal. He testified over the years, there had been “numerous times where there has been controversy over the understanding of what and when a day starts and ends.” He testified he did not want to lose any time with G.L.T., she does not want to live with Kimberly, and she should be allowed to live where she is most comfortable. He testified G.L.T. is “highly respectful, very brilliant,” and not a liar. He stated “there has been nothing but trouble” with G.L.T.’s communication with her - 17 - mother. He expressed his devotion and love for G.L.T. and stated he was here “to save her, help her, and protect her, as a father should do.” Jeremy stated he believed he was “cheated out of time” with his daughter, referring to the times when he was not allowed to have G.L.T. for the two hours from when G.L.T. would get out of school until Kimberly was available after work. Jeremy testified he believed G.L.T. had been subjected to mental and physical abuse in Kimberly’s home but stated the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services had never been involved. ¶ 43 When asked if he has talked to G.L.T. about the case, he stated he had answered G.L.T.’s questions “to the best of [his] knowledge and explain[ed] to her that [he is] not an attorney, that she would have to talk to her GAL.” He acknowledged he had talked to G.L.T. about the GAL report. He denied ever telling G.L.T. what she should say in speaking with her mother about the case. When discussing the terms of the March 27, 2013, agreed order, he acknowledged exhibit A did not contain the words “and” or “or,” but that “standard English” dictated that “after work/school” means, after work and/or school. When referring to Thanksgiving 2023, he testified they visited several different family members, including his mother in Moline, Illinois and his wife’s family in Bettendorf, Iowa. He stated the language of the March 27, 2013, agreed order, permitted him to do so, and he gave Kimberly three days’ notice of his plans to be “out of the area” for Thanksgiving. ¶ 44 Jeremy testified about a parenting-time exchange during which the parties got into a dispute about whether Andrea’s birthday should be considered a “major family event,” as contemplated in the March 27, 2013, agreed order. Jeremy also testified that on the day G.L.T. was sick, his intent was to pick up G.L.T. as soon as he could because she did not want to be at Kimberly’s house. Jeremy testified about the order of protection he obtained against the - 18 - grandparents due to the interactions at the school bus stop. The transcript of the order of protection hearing, wherein G.L.T. testified, was admitted into evidence without objection. ¶ 45 When Jeremy was recalled to testify during Kimberly’s case in chief, he stated he had submitted a revised financial affidavit and reported that, in September 2025, he had been deemed eligible for disability benefits as of July 13, 2023, which meant he received back payment of benefits calculated to that date and monthly payments moving forward. G.L.T. also now received disability benefits as his dependent. ¶ 46 7. Kimberly’s Testimony ¶ 47 Kimberly was on the stand for seven days of this hearing. She stated she has a good re