Find Legal Information

The plaintiff, Victoria S. Smith, appeals from the judgment ofthe trial court awarding custody of her son, David Gingrey, to thedefendant, David's father, Frank Lamer. On appeal, Victoriacontends that the trial court proceeded improperly when itinterviewed David in camera with no court reporter present. Weagree. Consequently, we vacate the judgment of the trial court andremand the cause for further proceedings.

Initially, we note that Frank has not filed a brief. However,since the record is simple and the issues can be decided without anappellee's brief, we will address the issues on the merits. FirstCapitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d128, 345 N.E.2d 493 (1976).

Victoria and Frank were never married. Their son, David, wasborn in January 1983. Various legal proceedings followed David'sbirth, including a paternity action and numerous actionssurrounding the payment, or non-payment, of child support by Frank.

In January 1998, Victoria and Frank discussed the possibilitythat David might move to Alabama to live with Frank. According toVictoria, she was working on the afternoon shift and neither shenor her husband were available to supervise David. As a result, hehad become a disciplinary problem. In March 1998, David moved inwith Frank.

Frank filed a petition for custody of David in March 1999. Victoria opposed the petition. The docket entry for the day of thehearing on Frank's petition reveals that the trial court conductedan in camera interview with David. However, the docket entryfurther discloses that no court reporter was present. Notranscript of that interview was made part of the record. In awritten order, the trial judge determined that it was in David'sbest interests for custody to be awarded to Frank.

On appeal, Victoria claims, inter alia, that the trial courtproceeded improperly when it failed to have its in camera interviewwith David transcribed and made a part of the record.

Section 604(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution ofMarriage Act (the Act) provides that when a trial court considersmatters of custody and visitation, the court may interview thechild in chambers to ascertain the child's wishes. 750 ILCS5/604(a) (West 1998). This section further provides that the court"shall cause a court reporter to be present who shall make acomplete record of the interview instantaneously to be part of therecord in the case." 750 ILCS 5/604(a) (West 1998). Legislativeuse of the word "shall" is generally considered to express anintent for the provision to be mandatory. Hoffman EstatesProfessional Firefighters Assn. v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 305Ill. App. 3d 242, 711 N.E.2d 1109 (1999). The use of the word"shall" in this particular statute is mandatory, and the presenceof a court reporter at an in camera interview cannot be waived bythe parties. DeYoung v. DeYoung, 62 Ill. App. 3d 837, 379 N.E.2d396 (1978). The absence of a transcript of the in camera interviewis prejudicial to the party who is not granted custody and providesno means of determining whether the trial court's decisionconstituted an abuse of discretion. DeYoung, 62 Ill. App. 3d 837,379 N.E.2d 396.

In the case at bar, it is clear that no court reporter waspresent during the trial judge's in camera interview with David sono transcript of the interview was made part of the record. As theDeYoung court pointed out, the lack of a transcript prejudices bothVictoria's attempts to obtain a reversal of the trial court'sdecision and this court's efforts to review that decision. Wehold, then, that the trial court erred in failing to have a courtreporter present during its in camera interview with David and infailing to have a transcript of that interview made part of therecord. Accordingly, we must vacate the judgment awarding custodyto Frank and remand the matter to the trial court for proceedingswhich comply with the requirements of section 604(a) of the Act.

We recognize that the circuit courts of this state arecurrently faced with a shortage of court reporters. We furtherrecognize that our decision in this matter may exacerbate thatproblem. However, we do not write the laws of the state; we mustinterpret and enforce them as written. In the instant case, thelaw is clear and unambiguous. A court reporter must be present forin camera interviews and a transcript of the interview must be madepart of the record.

In light of our decision, we need not address the other issuesraised in Victoria's brief.

The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is vacatedand the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Vacated and remanded.

HOLDRIDGE and LYTTON, JJ., concur.