{ "id": 2620298, "name": "In re MARRIAGE OF MARYANNE MANGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, and GEORGE MANGAN, Respondent-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "In re Marriage of Mangan", "decision_date": "1989-04-10", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201488\u20140560", "first_page": "140", "last_page": "147", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "182 Ill. App. 3d 140" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "405 N.E.2d 1112", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 810", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3208561 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/84/0810-01" ] }, { "cite": "434 N.E.2d 811", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "105 Ill. App. 3d 596", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5470791 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "609" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/105/0596-01" ] }, { "cite": "396 N.E.2d 1214", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 Ill. App. 3d 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5605035 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/78/0204-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 729, "char_count": 16793, "ocr_confidence": 0.79, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08, "percentile": 0.35519078525427544 }, "sha256": "8d915ba461afaf3c0aec6baba8f09f568c4b56ee7ca2e89a52f5638b2862d4d0", "simhash": "1:a5eba04e36828f27", "word_count": 2733 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:08:14.831486+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re MARRIAGE OF MARYANNE MANGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, and GEORGE MANGAN, Respondent-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from an order granting custody of the parties\u2019 minor son, George, Jr., to his father, George Mangan, Sr. We affirm.\nPetitioner Maryanne Mangan (Maryanne) filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on September 25, 1984. Maryanne was granted temporary custody of the minor child, George Jr., pursuant to an agreed order on November 26, 1984. On January 29, 1987, George Mangan (George) filed a counterpetition for dissolution at which time he asked to be awarded custody of George Jr.\nAt the time of trial on the custody issue, George Jr. was 5xlz years old and had lived with his mother since birth. Although there was testimony establishing that George Jr. was doing well in a kindergarten program in his Lincoln Park neighborhood and was healthy and well cared for, there was substantial testimony indicating that he suffered from neurotic emotional illness. Testimony introduced by the mother focused on the fact that George Jr. had been diagnosed as having moderate asthma, is chronically ill and should not be separated from his mother because separation could cause anxiety attacks that in turn could cause critical asthma attacks. Dr. Bussell, the psychiatrist appointed by the court from a list tendered by Maryanne, testified that the child suffered from a neurotic disorder and has a great deal of pent-up anger and rage which he characterized as abnormal.\nTestimony regarding the severity of George Jr.\u2019s asthma was substantially conflicting. Maryanne testified that the child had to be hospitalized twice during the time she was caring for him. She conceded, however, that only one incident involved an asthma attack. In addition, although Maryanne took George Jr. to the hospital emergency room 20 to 30 times, George testified that he had never needed to do so during all the time he had his son for visitation. Testimony also showed that George Jr. never exhibited symptoms of asthma while in the presence of his own psychiatrist (Dr. Ner Littner), Maryanne\u2019s neighbor, Dr. Bussell, Maryanne\u2019s sister or George\u2019s family and friends.\nThere was also varying testimony with regard to the cause of George Jr.\u2019s asthma. Dr. Littner, George Jr.\u2019s psychiatrist, who was selected by Maryanne and testified on her behalf, stated that the asthma was triggered by emotional causes. Another of the child\u2019s doctors, Dr. Randall, testified that environmental factors were the primary cause and that the severity would depend upon the time of year. Dr. Randall also testified that George Jr. could lead a relatively normal life so long as he received medication on a timely basis. Dr. Randall expressed the opinion that any reliable caretaker could learn how to manage the boy\u2019s illness and to give the appropriate injections and medications.\nThere was also testimony from both parents regarding the child\u2019s medication. George testified that Maryanne constantly changed the medications as well as their frequency and dosages. He also testified that the written instructions she gave him were often inconsistent with instructions from George Jr.\u2019s physicians which necessitated contact with the doctors to verify the correct dosages of medication.\nMaryanne alleged that George was an alcoholic and an unfit father as a consequence. No medical evidence or expert-testimony, however, was presented in this regard. Of the two incidents involving George being stopped for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol, one occurred prior to the marriage when he was 19 years old and the other involved a ticket he received for improper lane usage six years prior to the trial. George testified that he did not drink on weekends when he had visitation with his son. He also testified that he has never been convicted of driving under the influence or had his license suspended or revoked. Testimony regarding George\u2019s drinking habits was also presented by George\u2019s friend, Thomas Scanlon. Scanlon\u2019s testimony indicated that George drank beer after softball games but that there were only 10 games each summer and George did not drink after every game. Two other witnesses testifying on George\u2019s behalf testified that they had an occasional drink with George after work. Based on the testimony regarding George\u2019s prior drinking habits, the trial court found him to be an alcoholic but also found that he had rehabilitated himself and that alcohol had not interfered with his parenting skills or the time spent with his child.\nA substantial amount of testimony was presented regarding George\u2019s capabilities as a parent, including that of Thomas and Sally Scanlon, George\u2019s sister, Maryanne\u2019s father and Dr. Bussell, all of whom testified that George was a good parent who was very attentive to his son\u2019s medical needs. Dr. Bussell, who as previously stated was chosen to assess the parties under the direction of the court, testified that George would be the better custodial parent.\nTestimony on Maryanne\u2019s behalf was presented by Dr. Littner and Dr. Arnold, Maryanne\u2019s psychiatrist of three years, both of whom testified that Maryanne was handling George Jr. appropriately. Dr. Littner testified that although Maryanne did \u201covershelter\u201d George Jr., oversheltering an asthmatic child was typical. He also testified, however, that he had never seen Maryanne as a patient, had never given her psychological tests and had seen her only once with the child. On cross-examination, Dr. Arnold stated that he had only observed Maryanne and George Jr. during 15-minute breaks between therapy sessions with Maryanne in his office and that he was unable to render an opinion as to who would be a better parent. Maryanne presented additional supportive testimony from an acquaintance who had observed her interaction with the child at a local park and a teacher from his school, who stated that his behavior was appropriate to his age.\nFollowing the presentation of all of the evidence, the trial court found that it was in the best interest of the child that custody be granted to the father. Maryanne Mangan now brings this appeal.\nMaryanne\u2019s claim is that the trial court\u2019s decision to award custody of the minor child to the father was against the manifest weight of the evidence. She states that Dr. Bussell\u2019s testimony was that the child\u2019s pent-up anger was \u201creported to him\u201d by the mother not, as the trial court stated, that the boy \u201chad anger and confusion\u201d due to his interaction with his mother. Further, she contends that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on Dr. Bussell\u2019s report, which she characterizes as inaccurate and incomplete. She contends that although he claimed she exhibited symptoms of \u201chistrionic personality disorder,\u201d he later admitted that she did not have such a disorder. She argues that Dr. Bussell\u2019s opinion that she was infantizing and smothering the child was inaccurate and that it was based on the fact that he did not understand the severity of George Jr.\u2019s asthma. Maryanne also challenges Dr. Bussell\u2019s assertion that her overmothering was manifested in George Jr. missing 90% of his scheduled school days due to being ill. She contends that this was erroneous and that evidence adduced at trial showed that he missed only 8 of 58 possible school days. Maryanne maintains that while evidence shows that she was a careful parent, Dr. Bussell failed to investigate evidence that George was an alcoholic. She focuses on the fact that she has been George Jr.\u2019s primary caretaker since his birth, that she keeps in constant contact with the boy\u2019s teachers and doctors, and that she is available to care for him 24 hours per day, and that as a result, she would be the better custodial parent.\nThe Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 40, par. 602) provides that custody determinations are to be made based on the best interest of the child. Section 602 provides that the following factors shall be considered:\n\u201c(1) the wishes of the child\u2019s parent or parents as to his custody;\n(2) the wishes of the child as to his custodian;\n(3) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parent or parents, his siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child\u2019s best interest;\n(4) the child\u2019s adjustment to his home, school and community;\n(5) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; and\n(6) the physical violence or threat of physical violence by the child\u2019s potential custodian, whether directed against the child or directed against another person but witnessed by the child.\n(b) The court shall not consider conduct of a present or proposed custodian that does not affect his relationship to the child.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 40, par. 602.\nIt is the task of the trial court to evaluate all of the circumstances and appraise the witnesses\u2019 credibility. It is not necessary to find one parent \u201cunfit\u201d to justify an award to the other parent. Nor do Illinois courts assume that the mother is necessarily the better custodian for young children. (See In re Marriage of Sieck (1979), 78 Ill. App. 3d 204, 396 N.E.2d 1214.) A reviewing court should not overturn the trial court\u2019s determination unless the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence or is manifestly unjust. In re Marriage of Milovich (1982), 105 Ill. App. 3d 596, 434 N.E.2d 811.\nIn the pending case, the trial court heard substantial testimony from the parties and their witnesses prior to determining that custody of the minor should be given to the father, George Mangan. After reviewing the record, we find no basis upon which to find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting custody of George Mangan, Jr., to his father.\nContrary to Maryanne\u2019s assertion, the trial court\u2019s decision was not based solely on Dr. Bussell\u2019s testimony that George Jr. had anger and rage due to her parenting. The trial court in written findings discussed Maryanne\u2019s allegations regarding George\u2019s alcoholism and found that George had rehabilitated himself and that his use of alcohol had no detrimental impact on his parenting skills. Furthermore, there was no evidence to support Maryanne\u2019s claim that Dr. Bussell\u2019s report was inaccurate. Although there was a difference of opinion expressed by the experts as to who would be the better custodial parent, and although Dr. Bussell acknowledged using archaic terminology in describing Maryanne\u2019s personality, the trial court\u2019s opinion was not based upon any finding of neurotic disorder on Maryanne\u2019s part. Rather it was based upon the court\u2019s conclusion that George would be better able to serve George Jr.\u2019s interests.\nThere is also no merit to Maryanne\u2019s contention that Dr. Bussell\u2019s testimony and written report were impeached with respect to his finding that Maryanne tended to overexaggerate the seriousness of the child\u2019s asthma. The trial court heard several witnesses who had spent significant periods of time with the child and never saw him experience any symptoms of asthma. No medical testimony was presented indicating that the child\u2019s asthma was so serious that George could not manage it. To the contrary, substantial evidence was presented showing that George could do so and had demonstrated his ability to do so. The trial court was also presented with considerable testimony to the effect that Maryanne tended to overreact by rushing the child to the emergency room, called George constantly on weekends to check up on George Jr., claimed he was ill when he was not and possibly overmedicated him. Although Maryanne criticized Dr. Bussell\u2019s testimony that her \u2018 \u2018 over mothering\u2019 \u2019 was reflected in the fact that George Jr. missed 90% of his scheduled school days, and states that he missed much less, according to the record, the information about the child\u2019s having missed school 90% of the time was information that Maryanne had given Dr. Bussell in his interviews with her.\nThere is also no merit to Maryanne\u2019s claim that the bulk of the evidence established that she was a careful parent and that George was not. Although Maryanne placed great emphasis on George\u2019s alleged drinking problem, she produced no witnesses to corroborate her testimony. Maryanne herself testified that she could not say that he had ever been impaired by alcohol when he picked up George Jr. Moreover, even George\u2019s witnesses who testified that they drank with him on social occasions testified that they had never seen him intoxicated and that he never drank when he had visitation with his son.\nOn the basis of the testimony of George\u2019s own witnesses, as well as a DUI incident when he was approximately 18 to 19 years old and an incident six years prior to trial for which he was ticketed for improper lane usage, the trial court determined that George was an alcoholic. As noted previously, however, the trial court found that he had rehabilitated himself, that he functioned well and that alcohol had no adverse impact on his life or on his parenting skills. Section 602 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 40, par. 602) specifically requires that \u201c[t]he court shall not consider conduct of a *** proposed custodian that does not affect his relationship to the child.\u201d See also In re Custody of Blonsky (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 810, 405 N.E.2d 1112.\nMaryanne\u2019s contention that George lacked concern for his son\u2019s health problems is also not demonstrated by the record. George presented testimony by six witnesses, among them Maryanne\u2019s father, all of whom were of the opinion that George was an attentive and careful parent and that he would be the better custodial parent. There was testimony showing that George purchased special medical equipment necessary to cope with the child\u2019s asthma and that he had been trained in its use. George testified that he had contacted various of George Jr.\u2019s doctors regarding the proper dosage of the medications that the child required on a daily basis. In short, no witness other than Maryanne herself raised questions as to George\u2019s parental fitness. In contrast, several witnesses testified regarding unstable behavior on Maryanne\u2019s part.\nIn urging reversal, Maryanne also relies on Dr. Littner\u2019s testimony that she was the primary caretaker and the psychological parent and therefore she should remain the custodial parent. She points to Dr. Littner\u2019s testimony that the usual trigger for an asthma attack in a young child is the fear of being abandoned by his mother and that separation could bring on a condition known as status asthmaticus, which is unbeatable and can cause death. On this basis, Dr. Littner testified that custody should not be transferred away from Maryanne.\nThe record demonstrates that there was substantial disagreement as to the effect of separating George Jr. from Maryanne. Moreover, the issue before the trial court here was which parent would be the better custodial parent, and although Dr. Littner was the child\u2019s psychologist, he conceded that he had never interviewed George nor had he conducted any psychological tests on either Maryanne or George. Even assuming he had some basis for believing Maryanne to be the preferable custodial parent, his opinion was only one factor to be considered by the trial court and would not be determinative in as much as he had no basis for assessing George\u2019s parental abilities or the quality of his relationship with his son.\nIn cases involving custody, it is the trial court\u2019s responsibility to evaluate the circumstances before it and assess the witnesses\u2019 credibility. As a reviewing court we will not overturn the trial court\u2019s determination unless the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. (In re Marriage of Milovich (1982), 105 Ill. App. 3d 596, 609, 434 N.E.2d 811.) The trial court here heard substantial testimony regarding George\u2019s fitness as a custodial parent. While the court may also have found that Maryanne was a fit mother, after evaluating all of the evidence and considering the witnesses\u2019 credibility, the trial court determined that George would be the better custodial parent of the two. On the basis of the record before us, we find no reason to disturb the trial court\u2019s ruling.\nAccordingly, the order of the circuit court of Cook County granting custody of George Mangan, Jr., to George Mangan is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nCAMPBELL and BUCKLEY, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR" } ], "attorneys": [ "Kanter & Mattenson, Ltd., of Chicago (Stuart Gordon and William J. Arendt, of counsel), for appellant.", "Massucci, Blomquist, Brown & Judson, of Arlington Heights (Raymond R. Massucci and Terry J. Finman, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re MARRIAGE OF MARYANNE MANGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, and GEORGE MANGAN, Respondent-Appellee.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 1\u201488\u20140560\nOpinion filed April 10, 1989.\nKanter & Mattenson, Ltd., of Chicago (Stuart Gordon and William J. Arendt, of counsel), for appellant.\nMassucci, Blomquist, Brown & Judson, of Arlington Heights (Raymond R. Massucci and Terry J. Finman, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0140-01", "first_page_order": 162, "last_page_order": 169 }