Witnessess

Witnesses

___Children
   Court’s ruling denying counsel’s attempt to question children in open court as to a specific preference for one parent over the other was not error.  Wurm v. Howard
   If competent as a witness in other respects, the child may testify to his custodial preferences in a custody proceeding.  In re Combs
   In determining whether a child should testify at a custody proceeding, the trial court should take great pains to conduct an in camera conference with the child to determine the competency of the child, as well as the competency of any evidence which the child might present and then determine whether the best interests of the child would be served by permitting her to testify or be sheltered from testifying and being subjected to vigorous cross-examination, and a report of the essential material matters developed at the in camera conference should be made of record by the trial court and the court should state the reasons for allowing or disallowing the testimony of the child, and also note the factual information which the court developed from the conference with the child which would be considered by the court in its ultimate determinations in the case.  Crownover v. Crownover
   The trial court’s refusal to hear a six year old child as a witness in a custody hearing was neither prejudicial or an abuse of discretion in view of the age of the child.  Osman v. Osman

___Cross-Examination
   Where no new evidence was elicited from either witnesses on redirect examination and re-cross-examination of witnesses would simply have covered areas addressed and answered in direct, cross and redirect examination, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding father from re-cross-examining witness in custody dispute.  In re Felson

___Experts
   Even assuming that the witness was an expert, however, the trial court clearly would not be bound by her opinion because custody is a judicial determination.  In re Milovich

___Testimony of Doctor
   That the children’s pediatrician may have disagreed with the court appointed psychiatrist did not in and of itself render the trial court’s award of custody to the mother an abuse of discretion.  In re Ford

Back to 750 ILCS 5/602 Home Page