Full Opinion

NOTICE 2026 IL App (4th) 260375-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-26-0375 November 5, 2026 not precedent except in the Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1). OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT GARRET R., ) Appeal from the Petitioner-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Pike County GRACE M., ) No. 24FA27 Respondent-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Zachary P. Boren, ) Judge Presiding. PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Lannerd and Grischow concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order allocating parenting time and significant decision-making responsibilities. ¶2 Petitioner, Garret R., and Respondent, Grace M., are the parents of C.W.R. (born March 2024). The parties were never married. In July 2024, Garret filed a petition to determine the existence of a father and child relationship and to allocate parental responsibilities regarding C.W.R. ¶3 The ensuing litigation spanned over a year and a half. The trial court characterized the proceedings as a high conflict case, marked by severe hostility and multiple findings of indirect civil contempt against Grace. In January 2026, the court entered an order awarding Garret (1) sole significant decision-making authority and (2) the majority of parenting time. ¶4 Grace appeals, arguing (1) the trial court’s findings regarding parenting time and decision-making authority were against the manifest weight of the evidence, (2) Garret was bound by his initial pleadings, which stated that equal parenting time was in the child’s best interests, (3) she was unfairly prejudiced by Garret’s failure to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213(f)(2) (eff. Jan. 1, 2018), which required him to disclose his expert witness regarding breast milk prior to trial, and (4) Garret’s counsel repeatedly asked improper, demeaning, and irrelevant questions about alleged offers of oral sex and sexual conduct, in violation of the Illinois civil rape shield statute (735 ILCS 5/8-2801 (West 2024)). We disagree and affirm. ¶5 I. BACKGROUND ¶6 The evidence in this case was presented over the course of nearly two years— spanning from July 2024 to April 2026—across 17 hearings, which included the testimony of 19 witnesses—13 testifying for Garret and 6 for Grace. Because it would be neither practical nor helpful to exhaustively recite every detail of this record, we set forth a summary of the factual and procedural highlights necessary to provide context for the trial court’s judgment and the specific issues raised on appeal. ¶7 A. The Proceedings Generally ¶8 1. The Events Leading to the Filing of the Petition ¶9 In December 2022, Garret and Grace met through their employment and began a romantic relationship, culminating in the birth of C.W.R. in March 2024. Garret had two children from a previous marriage, R.R. and G.R. In fall 2022, the parties purchased a home together and lived together. During this time, the parties’ relationship was strained by family tensions, primarily friction between Grace and Garret’s mother, Terri R. ¶ 10 In May 2024, Grace and Terri had an argument at the parties’ home regarding Terri’s perception that Grace was treating R.R. and G.R. poorly. Following that argument, Grace -2- barred Garret’s family from the couple’s residence and demanded that Garret force Terri to apologize. Garret did not do so, resulting in additional arguments and a further breakdown in the relationship. In June 2024, the parties separated, and Grace moved in with her mother, along with C.W.R. ¶ 11 In July 2024, Grace photographed alcohol in Garret’s home, refused Garret’s request to spend his birthday alone with C.W.R., and threatened to call the police if Garret hosted a birthday party for G.R. at the parties’ jointly owned house. Grace later announced she was taking back all the toys, shoes, clothes, and supplies she had ever purchased for R.R. and G.R.—including items that had been gifted to the children “from Santa”—and she later admitted at trial that she took and sold those items online, prompting Garret’s ex-wife to threaten a stolen-property report. ¶ 12 2. The Initial Petition and Response ¶ 13 In late July 2024, Grace asked Garret to surrender his parental rights to C.W.R. Garret refused and then filed a petition to determine the existence of the father and child relationship regarding C.W.R. In that initial petition, Garret asserted that it was in C.W.R.’s best interests for him to be awarded joint parental decision-making responsibilities and equal parenting time, and he requested that the trial court enter an order to that effect. ¶ 14 In August 2024, Grace responded to the filing by sending hostile texts to Garret, such as, “game on to you and your mom who is paying your lawyer fees now. There is no being friends or getting along. You are dead to me.” Later that month, Grace filed her response to Garret’s petition, admitting that Garret was C.W.R.’s biological father and requesting that the trial court award her sole parental decision-making responsibilities and the majority of parenting time. ¶ 15 3. The Events From September 2024 Through April 2025 ¶ 16 In September 2024, the parties appeared in court and presented evidence regarding -3- temporary parenting time. That day, the trial court entered an order adjudicating Garret to be C.W.R.’s biological father alongside a temporary order awarding Garret daytime parenting time on Saturdays and Mondays. That temporary order directed for parenting exchanges to occur at the parties’ respective residences and explicitly ordered both parties not to “engage in any harmful or offensive communication” with one another. However, on the first exchange at her mother’s home in Mt. Sterling, Illinois, Grace threatened to report Garret and Terri to law enforcement for trespassing if Garret did not move his car, and she repeatedly flipped Terri off with her middle finger. ¶ 17 Grace conducted herself in a similar manner during multiple exchanges that month, including an occasion when Grace entered Garret’s residence and claimed that Garret’s grandmother “tried to almost physically assault” her at the door. The trial court later found that this claim was completely unsupported by Grace’s own video recording of the encounter. Also, during this time, Grace sent disparaging text messages to Garret. ¶ 18 In October 2024, the trial court entered an agreed modification to the temporary order, moving the parenting exchange location from the parties’ residences to the sheriff’s office in Barry, Illinois, or Mt. Sterling. Subsequently, on October 19, 2024, Grace went to the Mt. Sterling Police Department instead of the Brown County Sheriff’s Office. She then blamed Garret for being at the wrong location and threatened to withhold visitation. He then went to the police department to pick up C.W.R. Grace recorded the exchange on her phone. She told C.W.R. she would “save [him] very soon” and called Garret a “horrible person” in front of C.W.R., among other offensive comments. She texted Garret that she did not care if she was noncompliant with the court orders and made additional offensive remarks. ¶ 19 Around this time, Officer Darius Yakle began supervising the parties’ parenting -4- exchanges. While doing so, Yakle developed a personal relationship with Grace, exchanging personal text messages with her and visiting her mother’s home in November 2024 to watch a movie. Between October and December 2024, Grace sent multiple messages to Garret, stating that a police officer present at the exchanges would testify on her behalf. Yakle later testified that he recognized a conflict of interest by November 2024 and was instructed by his police chief to remove himself from the parties’ dispute. ¶ 20 In November 2024, Grace sent numerous offensive text messages to Garret, including messages suggesting that C.W.R. might not be his biological child. For example, she texted him, “All you are going to get from me now is me coming off as a bitch because now I’m sick of your ugly, worthless, deadbeat, piece of shit self,” and, “I’m done with exchanges you can fuck yourself.” Twice that month, Grace unilaterally denied Garret his scheduled parenting time, despite his timely arrival for the exchanges. Specifically, she withheld C.W.R. the first time, claiming a cousin was visiting. She later denied Garret parenting time because he did not show her proof of hearing protection for C.W.R., explicitly stating, “I do not care what court orders are.” ¶ 21 In December 2024, Garret filed his first petition for adjudication of indirect civil contempt and a motion to modify temporary parenting time, citing Grace’s two November visitation denials and her barrage of offensive messages. The following day, Grace reported Garret to DCFS regarding a shotgun he owned and filed a police report alleging Garret had abused her in June 2024. ¶ 22 Later that month, the trial court entered its first contempt order, finding Grace in indirect civil contempt for willfully denying Garret parenting time twice in November 2024 and for repeatedly engaging in harmful and offensive communications, in violation of the September order. The court ordered Grace to pay attorney fees, admonished her on the record that continued -5- violations could result in criminal contempt and jail time, and ordered the parties to communicate exclusively through the Our Family Wizard app beginning in January 2025. In that same order, the court modified the temporary parenting schedule, awarding Garret weekend parenting time every week from Friday evening to Sunday evening, with all exchanges taking place at the Pike County Sheriff’s Office in Pittsfield, Illinois. ¶ 23 On January 10, 2025, during a parenting exchange, Grace struck Garret in the chest and stomach area with C.W.R.’s backpack and told Garret, “you’re a fucking idiot,” “I hate you,” “you’ll be lucky if you live to see another year,” and “you’re a piece of crap, you’re not a parent,” while telling C.W.R., “mommy will save you from these terrible people very soon.” When later ordered to produce her video recordings of the exchanges in discovery, Grace produced screen- recorded, edited clips of the incident that omitted portions of the incident. Grace made similar statements at another exchange later that month. ¶ 24 In February 2025, Garret filed a second petition for indirect civil contempt based on Grace’s conduct at the January 10, 2025, exchange and Grace’s continued offensive messages. Later that month, Grace’s hostile conduct persisted, such as accusing Garret of bruising C.W.R. during a video call and filming Garret and Terri after exchanges. ¶ 25 In March 2025, Grace denied Garret parenting time on three separate occasions, including one weekend where Garret’s family had planned C.W.R.’s first birthday party. During that month Grace obtained an emergency stalking no-contact order against Garret’s mother, Terri. In her sworn testimony at the emergency hearing, Grace testified that Terri had stalked and followed her into the Pittsfield Walmart after a parenting exchange earlier that month. However, later witness testimony and surveillance camera footage refuted this testimony. Grace voluntarily dismissed her stalking no-contact case in July 2025. -6- ¶ 26 Terri subsequently filed a complaint with the sheriff regarding Grace’s false police report, sought an order of protection against Grace, and filed a petition for sanctions against Grace. After hearing evidence on the petition, the trial court found Grace’s testimony disingenuous and unbelievable, concluding that Grace had intentionally offered false sworn testimony in bad faith to (1) harass Terri, (2) further her hostile campaign against Garret, and (3) sever Terri’s relationship with her grandson. The court later entered an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (eff. Jan. 1, 2018) sanctions judgment ordering Grace to pay Teri $26,033.34. ¶ 27 Later in March 2025, Garret filed a motion for sanctions alongside an amended petition to determine the existence of the father and child relationship, alleging that it was now in C.W.R.’s best interests that he be awarded sole parental decision-making responsibilities and the majority of parenting time. Grace also filed cross-petitions for indirect civil contempt in March and April 2025, alleging Garret called her “ ‘ugly’ ” and “ ‘worthless’ ” on a February call, spoke to C.W.R.’s pediatrician, Dr. Andrew Barfield, about C.W.R.’s diet without informing her, and told her, “ ‘It does not effing matter,’ ” at an exchange when she complained C.W.R. was wearing the same shirt twice. ¶ 28 On March 28, 2025, Garret experienced a tire problem on his vehicle, messaged Grace ahead of time that he would be a few minutes late for the exchange, and arrived around eight minutes late. Grace then lectured Garret about his alleged rudeness, repeatedly threatened to leave, demanded that he apologize and thank her for her graciousness, and ultimately did not exchange C.W.R. ¶ 29 Following an April 2025 hearing, the trial court issued explicit exchange instructions, clarifying that the parties must wait at the exchange location and that a missed exchange does not cancel an entire weekend’s parenting time. -7- ¶ 30 4. Testimony Regarding Breast Milk ¶ 31 At an evidentiary hearing in May 2025, Dr. Barfield testified as an expert witness for both parties regarding C.W.R.’s medical care and nutrition. Barfield confirmed that C.W.R.’s physical health needs were well met, but he contradicted testimony by Grace at a prior hearing that C.W.R. was exclusively breastfed in September 2024, noting that medical records showed the infant was supplementing with formula and consuming pureed foods. Regarding the parties’ dispute over transitioning C.W.R. from breast milk to whole milk in March 2025, Barfield testified that although breastfeeding offers benefits so long as a mother is willing and able, breast milk was no longer medically necessary once C.W.R. reached one year of age. He explained that almost all one-year-olds in the United States transition to an alternative milk shortly after turning one, that whole milk or other alternative milks were completely medically appropriate for C.W.R., and that because there was no medical reason C.W.R. needed to be exclusively on breast milk or exclusively on whole milk, he would support whatever decision benefited the family as a whole. ¶ 32 At a subsequent hearing, Natalia Thompson, a pediatric nurse and a friend of Garret’s sister, testified as an expert witness regarding her evaluation of the breast milk Grace had provided for Garret in March 2025. Grace objected to this testimony, arguing that her testimony had not been disclosed until after the trial had already commenced and she had not produced a written expert report. The trial court overruled the objection, noting that (1) Thompson was not a retained expert, (2) her opinions arose from events in March 2025, after the original discovery deadlines had passed, (3) Rule 213(f)(2) does not require a written report from an unretained independent expert, and (4) both parties had been permitted to tender late discovery throughout the ongoing proceedings. ¶ 33 Thompson testified that Garret sought her assistance in evaluating several bags of -8- breast milk that Grace had sent for Garret’s parenting time. Based on her hospital experience and pediatric nursing training, Thompson testified that the bags of breast milk provided by Grace had expired according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. Two of the bags smelled rancid and did not smell like healthy breast milk, which led her to advise Garret not to feed those bags to C.W.R. and to use his best judgment regarding the remaining bags. She also observed that several of the bags contained small particles or chunks that failed to mix well when shaken, which she had observed in healthy breast milk while working at the hospital. She stated that based on her training and experience, she had no medical or nutritional concerns with C.W.R. being fed whole milk in March 2025, as he was turning one year old. ¶ 34 5. Events From Spring 2025 Through Fall 2025 ¶ 35 Throughout the remainder of the proceedings in the spring, summer, and fall of 2025, Grace persisted in her hostile conduct toward Garret. She made disparaging remarks toward Garret in front of C.W.R, denied him parenting time, and sent him offensive messages. ¶ 36 For example, during an exchange in May 2025, Grace walked up to Garret’s vehicle to film him interacting with C.W.R. As Garret tried to start his own recording and unbuckle C.W.R., an open tobacco chew spit bottle spilled. Grace then scolded Garret in front of the child and later filed a petition seeking to bar him from chewing tobacco. Later that month, Grace reported an alleged violation of the stalking no-contact order to the Pike County Sheriff’s Office, claimed she was in fear for her life, and unilaterally denied Garret his parenting time for the entire Memorial Day weekend. Toward the end of the month, Grace messaged Garret: “You are so pathetic and such a liar. My son will be raised to NEVER be like you. You are a horrible role model and he is a better person in 5 minutes than you’ll ever be capable of in your whole life.” ¶ 37 During a June 2025 exchange, Grace filmed herself approaching Garret’s car before -9- the exchange time and demanding the exchange bag ahead of time. She later asserted that Garret hit C.W.R. in the face with the bag, despite the video showing it merely brushed past him. She also repeatedly told C.W.R., “You’re safe now. You’re safe now.” Later that night, she messaged Garret regarding C.W.R.’s 15-month doctor appointment the next day and warned him, “You will not be allowed in the room. *** My son and I are not safe alone with you, and it is not happening. You are not welcome in that room alone with us. If I have to call the police to be there for any—for my own safety and my child, I will.” Grace also failed to notify Garret of two separate medical appointments she scheduled for C.W.R. in May and June 2025. ¶ 38 In July 2025, after Garret informed Grace that C.W.R. got a scratch from falling on a toy stroller, Grace contacted the police, which resulted in an unfounded DCFS report made by Officer Yakle. Later that month, the trial court entered an agreed order modifying the weekend schedule to accommodate Grace’s family reunion. However, the court inadvertently wrote the incorrect day. Grace picked up C.W.R. as written in the order, but when the parties could not agree to switch the days, she called Garret names and refused to return C.W.R. that evening as directed, denying Garret the remainder of his weekend parenting time. Grace later stated in a text message that she “never read the court order handed to me.” ¶ 39 In August and September 2025, Grace continued to instigate conflict at exchanges, twice standing outside Garret’s vehicle to film and distract C.W.R. In August 2025, Grace also texted Garret that his “rude, nasty, two cent opinion, uneducated, and poorly worded” messages were why she refused to share information about C.W.R., threatened that “[y]our time will come very soon you can mark my words on it,” and threatened to file for contempt if he cut the child’s hair without her permission. Over the course of the dispute, by the trial court’s count, Grace - 10 - threatened to involve or actually called the police on Garret 12 times and DCFS 3 times. ¶ 40 B. The Trial Court’s “Order Regarding Parental Responsibilities and Support” ¶ 41 In January 2026, the trial court issued a comprehensive 49-page written order regarding parental responsibilities and child support. The court detailed the extensive evidence considered over the course of 17 hearings involving 19 witnesses (13 for Garret and 6 for Grace), thoroughly addressing the statutory factors, factual findings, and the court’s ultimate conclusions. ¶ 42 After summarizing the trial evidence, the trial court began its written analysis by writing the following: “In two and a half years of hearing family and divorce cases, this is the highest conflict case the Court has encountered. [Grace] and [Garret] entered into a relationship rapidly in December 2022. [Grace’s] relationship with [Garret’s] mother soured. [Grace] obviously had a good relationship with [R.R.] and [G.R.] for some period of time. But the family demands of [Grace] versus [Garret’s] family created too much stress for any relationship to survive. [Garret’s] mother had a significant conflict with [Grace] on May 1, 2024. [Grace] clearly wanted [Garret] to force his mother to apologize. [Garret] did not make that happen. He appears to have chosen his mother over [Grace]. At that point, there was no realistic possibility for the relationship between [Garret] and [Grace] to survive. There still might have been a coparenting relationship for the best interests of [C.W.R.] But [Grace] chose to weaponize [C.W.R.] against [Garret], using [C.W.R.] to punish [Garret] for choosing his mother over her. As she did that, [Grace] also engaged in an egregious course of conduct designed to alienate [C.W.R.] from [Garret]. For these reasons, as more particularly articulated below, the Court will award majority parenting time - 11 - to [Garret], with every other weekend parenting time to [Grace]. The Court will discuss the factors in 750 ILCS 5/602.7 and 602.5 in turn. While the Court cannot possibly address in writing every argument raised by the parties, the Court will address the most salient arguments in its analysis of the factors below.” ¶ 43 The trial court then addressed each of the statutory best interest factors it was required to consider when determining allocation of parenting time and decision-making authority. These findings were extensive, including a recitation of each individual factor, the relevant evidence and factual findings, and the court’s reasoning. ¶ 44 Regarding parenting time, the trial court found the following. ¶ 45 The trial court noted that although the parties shared extensive hostility and agreed on almost nothing regarding C.W.R., both parents cared for the child and maintained strong individual relationships with him. C.W.R. was well-adjusted in both homes, participated in early education, and was bonded with both extended families. However, the court found that the lifelong bond C.W.R. shared with his siblings slightly outweighed the extended family relationships at Grace’s house, favoring more time spent in Garret’s home. For the same reason, the court found the school district factor slightly favored Garret, with whom C.W.R. would be able to share the same schools, teachers, and community activities as his siblings. ¶ 46 The trial court found that C.W.R.’s physical health would be preserved well by either party. However, the court was gravely concerned for C.W.R.’s mental health and emotional development because of “[Grace’s] demonstrated pattern of alienating [C.W.R.] from [Garret] and making [C.W.R.] believe he is not safe with [Garret].” The court wrote the following on that point: “[T]here is not one shred of evidence to suggest that [Garret] is actively telling [C.W.R.] anything negative about [Grace]. But [she] is actively poisoning - 12 - [C.W.R.’s] mind against his father. This egregious pattern is certainly detrimental to [C.W.R.’s] mental health, and therefore this factor cuts strongly in favor of more parenting time with [Garret].” ¶ 47 The trial court noted both parents worked full-time jobs and that the parties lived about a 45 minute or longer drive apart, noting that this distance has not been convenient but was not “a significant impediment.” However, “[t]he parties have demonstrated no ability to cooperate in arrangements.” ¶ 48 The trial court stated that it disagreed with Garret’s arguments that Grace be ordered to obtain mental health counseling or jail time, noting there was no criminal contempt petition before the court and the evidence presented did not support an order for counseling. The court stated, “The Court believes the adjudication of this case should communicate to [Grace] how important it is that she not take further steps to alienate [C.W.R.] from [Garret] or to purposefully poison that relationship. If further steps are needed, the Court would address appropriate petitions or motions in the future.” ¶ 49 The trial court repeatedly found Grace to be an “extremely unbelievable witness” whose disrespectful and condescending courtroom demeanor bordered on direct criminal contempt. The court highlighted a litany of inconsistencies and fabrications in her testimony, noting she was particularly unbelievable where Garret was concerned. For example, Grace accused Garret of shoving her during a dispute in June 2024, but the court found no evidence to support this claim. She also falsely accused Garret’s grandmother of injuring her—an assertion directly contradicted by video evidence—and feigned ignorance about which police officer would testify on her behalf in order to hide a conflict of interest. Most significantly, the court highlighted Grace’s obtaining an emergency stalking no contact order against Terri in March 2025 by falsely swearing - 13 - that Terri had followed her to Walmart after an exchange. The court concluded that Grace offered this false sworn testimony specifically to undermine Terri’s relationship with her grandson, determining that this pervasive pattern of untruthfulness weighed strongly in favor of limiting Grace’s parenting time. ¶ 50 Beyond her false testimony, the trial court found that Grace engaged in abusive and controlling behavior toward Garret. The court noted that Grace was untruthful about her reasons for denying Garret parenting time in November 2024, and she also intentionally submitted incomplete videos of a January 2025 exchange to conceal her own physical assault on him. Conversely, the court found Garret’s claim that Grace hit him with a backpack during that same January exchange to be fully proven by his testimony and the accompanying recordings. Further, Grace directed threats at Garret, sending him messages such as, “you’ll be lucky if you live to see another year,” and, “Your time will come very soon you can mark my words on it.” ¶ 51 In light of this extreme hostility, the trial court found Grace’s claims that she fostered Garret and C.W.R.’s father-son relationship to be entirely insincere. Her purported efforts to encourage their bond were in actuality transparent attempts to manufacture photographic evidence to use in court or to exercise control over Garret, such as when she brought C.W.R. to Garret’s workplace for his first birthday only to unilaterally deny Garret his scheduled parenting time the very next day, deliberately ruining his family’s planned celebration. ¶ 52 The trial court found that when Grace denied Garret his court-ordered parenting time on two occasions in March 2025, despite his being present for the exchange, Grace “showed she is completely unwilling to place the needs of [C.W.R.] over her own needs.” In total, Grace unilaterally denied Garret parenting time on seven occasions, sometimes for multiple days, from November 2024 to July 2025. The court continued, writing the following: - 14 - “Although she at times has articulated the idea that spending time with [Garret] is in [C.W.R.’s] best interests, she spent her time lecturing [Garret] on his rudeness and demanding that he thank her for her graciousness instead of simply exchanging [C.W.R.] *** The only purpose for lecturing [Garret], arguing with him, and ultimately trying to use the plain language of the Court order against him, was to punish him for breaking up with her and not choosing her over his mother. The purpose was certainly not to advance [C.W.R.’s] interests over her own. It is heartbreaking to watch the videos of those two exchanges. [Grace] weaponized [C.W.R.] against [Garret] in the most hurtful way—by denying [Garret] time with his son. Her argument that he charged at her or swore at her on March 28 is unsupported by the record. Her argument that he was rude on March 28 is also not well supported (he did observe—correctly—that she had denied him parenting time before), and even if he had been rude, that would not be a basis to deny court- ordered parenting time.” ¶ 53 The trial court detailed Grace’s “egregious course of conduct designed to alienate” C.W.R. from Garret. She repeatedly belittled Garret in the child’s presence and made statements encouraging C.W.R. to feel unsafe with his father. Because Grace herself introduced the very recordings proving this behavior, the court noted she was either unaware of or indifferent to the harm she was causing, inferring that her unrecorded, private statements to C.W.R. were likely even worse. ¶ 54 In contrast to Grace’s conduct, Garret demonstrated a genuine willingness to facilitate C.W.R.’s relationship with Grace, frequently agreeing to modify weekend parenting schedules at her request. The trial court noted that Garret strictly adhered to court-ordered - 15 - exchange protocols and limited communication during his parenting time. The court highlighted Garret’s highly effective coparenting relationship with his ex-wife, noting that she testified he was her “ ‘best friend.’ ” Overall, the court concluded that Grace’s consistent intent to poison C.W.R.’s mind against his father weighed strongly in favor of awarding Garret more parenting time. ¶ 55 Regarding decision-making authority under section 602.5 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/602.5 (West 2024)), the trial court reiterated its earlier points when applicable. It found the “level of conflict between the parties strongly suggested the parent with primary residential care of [C.W.R.] will need to make significant decisions for [C.W.R.]” Ultimately, the court found that it would be in C.W.R.’s best interest for Garret to have primary parenting time and all significant decision-making and for Grace to have parenting time every other weekend. ¶ 56 C. “The Court Ordered Parenting Plan” ¶ 57 On March 23, 2026, the trial court entered a Court Ordered Parenting Plan, stated to have been entered consistent with the court’s January 27, 2026 order. The parenting plan set out the specific terms of the parties’ parenting arrangement and added provisions that the January order did not contain, including the following: (1) a vacation provision granting each parent annual vacation time; (2) provisions governing information sharing and parental communication; and (3) provisions addressing changes in residence, temporary changes, and relocation. The plan further added a series of “Other Provisions” governing parental conduct—among them restraints on disparaging the other parent, on discussing child support in the child’s presence, and on withholding parenting time for nonpayment of expenses—spanning more than ten paragraphs. ¶ 58 D. The Trial Court’s “Order Resolving Remaining Issues” ¶ 59 In April 2026, the trial court issued an order resolving all remaining issues - 16 - following a March 2026 hearing. Addressing Garret’s February 2025 second petition for indirect civil contempt, the court found that Grace’s messages between January 8 and 25, 2025— specifically calling Garret a “ ‘monster’ ” and stating she would tolerate his existence—constituted direct civil contempt for violating the order against harmful and offensive communications. The court noted it had already addressed Grace’s inappropriate actions during the January 10, 2025, exchange in its January order. ¶ 60 Garret also filed a motion for sanctions and other relief in June 2026, alleging that Grace denied him 48 hours of parenting time from May 24 to 26, 2025, called him an “ ‘asshole’ ” during a June 1, 2025, exchange, and failed to inform him of C.W.R.’s doctor appointments on May 20 and June 6, 2025. The trial court noted that the parenting time denial was already covered by the January order and found that the June 1 comment did not constitute a violation. ¶ 61 Finally, the trial court addressed Garret’s February 2026 petition for indirect civil contempt regarding C.W.R.’s Social Security card. Grace admitted she refused to obey the court order to share the card. Although Garret eventually received the card in March 2026 so he could secure insurance for the minor, he incurred attorney fees to get it. The court found Grace in indirect civil contempt for this refusal. After discussing child support, the court ruled on sanctions. Because the court had already factored Grace’s other contemptuous actions into its allocation of parental responsibility, it sanctioned her solely for the Social Security card violation, ordering her to pay Garret’s related attorney fees. ¶ 62 This appeal followed. ¶ 63 II. ANALYSIS ¶ 64 Grace appeals, arguing (1) the trial court’s findings regarding parenting time and decision-making authority were against the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) Garret was bound - 17 - by his initial pleadings, which stated that equal parenting time was in the child’s best interests; (3) she was unfairly prejudiced by Garret’s failure to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213(f)(2) (eff. Jan. 1, 2018), which required him to disclose his expert witness regarding breast milk prior to trial; and (4) Garret’s counsel repeatedly asked improper, demeaning, and irrelevant questions about alleged offers of oral sex and sexual conduct, in violation of the Illinois civil rape shield statute (see 735 ILCS 5/8-2801 (West 2024)). We disagree and affirm. ¶ 65 A. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a) ¶ 66 Because this case involves a matter affecting the allocation of parenting time, this case is designated as “accelerated” pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), which requires this court issue our decision within 150 days of the filing of a notice of appeal except unless there has been “good cause shown.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 311(a)(5) (eff. July 1, 2018). ¶ 67 Grace filed her amended notice of appeal on April 1, 2026, which means our decision was due on August 27, 2026. However, both parties requested oral argument in this case, and the case was docketed and heard on October 14, 2026. As a result, the case was not submitted for a decision until after oral argument. Because the case was not ready for disposition until after October 14, 2026, we find good cause for issuing our decision beyond the 150-day deadline. See In re Marriage of Mayes, 2018 IL App (4th) 180149, ¶ 53 (finding good cause where accommodating requests for oral argument delayed the filing of the decision). ¶ 68 B. Motions Taken With The Case ¶ 69 We note that both parties filed motions, which were taken with the case. ¶ 70 In April 2026, Garret filed a motion to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. He argues that the trial court’s final order in this matter was entered on January 27, 2026, but that Grace did not file her original notice of appeal until March 30, 2026, and her amended notice of - 18 - appeal until April 1, 2026—outside the 30-day window provided by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(a)(1) (eff. July 1, 2017). Grace responds that the January 27, 2026 order was not a final, appealable judgment, because the court reserved issues and retained jurisdiction to enter a parenting plan setting the substantive terms of the parties’ allocation, and that the court’s March 23, 2026 parenting plan—which added substantive provisions governing parenting time and the allocation of parental responsibilities—was the first final, appealable allocation judgment under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(6) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). We agree with Grace and conclude that we have jurisdiction. See In re Marriage of Capitani, 368 Ill. App. 3d 486, 487, 488-89 (2006) (holding the entry of a joint parenting order, which included specific provisions regarding custody not included in an earlier judgment for dissolution of marriage, was the appealable final judgment). ¶