Mother filed a petition to restrict the visitation of the father.   She alleged disrupting conduct by the father in the presence of the children.

The trial court determined that Father’s behavior was ‘not only disturbing but egregious. It warrants a modification of the Joint Parenting Agreement.’  Also, his behavior was “a substantial endangerment” to the well-being of the parties’ three children.

The trial court entered an order in which the court found that Mother and her boyfriend were more credible than Father was.    Father was incredible.   He made the statements alleged in Mother’s petition.

The court ordered that Father shall have supervised visitation with a professional supervisor until further ordered by the court.  And Father shall be solely responsible for the cost of the supervisor.

Father appealed.  He argues that the trial court erred in finding that his alleged actions constituted a substantial endangerment to the parties’ children and restricting his visitation.

The parties acknowledge that a hearing was conducted in which the court heard testimony from a number of persons.   But, there was no transcript, bystander’s report, or agreed statement of facts of the trial court hearing.  In the absence of such record on appeal, we must presume that the trial court followed the law and had a sufficient factual basis for its ruling.

The Appellate Court said that the trial  court’s decision was neither against the manifest weight of the evidence nor did it constitute an abuse of discretion.

In re Marriage of Manhoff, No. 1-06-2762.