Pursuant to this Court’s pilot project for divorce cases now set forth as Supreme Court Rule 34 4, we granted appellant Amy Sigal’s non-frivolous application for discretionary appeal of the parties’ final judgment of divorce. Appellant contends, inter alia, that the trial court abused its discretion by entering its decree nunc pro tunc so as to eliminate a “transition period” from supervised to unsupervised visitation that the trial court had orally announced it was providing for the welfare of the couple’s two children. We agree and accordingly reverse the trial court’s order. The facts of the case are essentially undisputed. Appellant and appellee David Sigal were married in June 2002. They have two children: a daughter who was born in November 2004 and a son who was born in February 2007. The son has speech difficulties and attention/focusing problems, is hyperactive and has required the assignment of a special facilitator to provide him with one-on-one supervision in preschool. In July 2008, appellant petitioned for a decree of separate maintenance. Her petition was granted in January 2009 after a hearing. As reflected in the decree, appellee’s cocaine and alcohol abuse problems were a concern such that all of his visitation with the children was required to be supervised and appellant was accorded the right to insist that appellee submit to drug/alcohol testing; appellee’s visitation with the children was conditioned on his not refusing to participate in the testing and on not testing positive for drugs or alcohol.
Appellant filed for divorce nine months later in September 2009. In her petition she asserted that all issues regarding custody, visitation and support of the children were fully adjudicated in the decree of separate maintenance. Appellee disagreed, however, and in his answer he sought “reasonable and fair unsupervised visitation” with the children. Notwithstanding appellee’s claim for unsupervised visitation, appellant and her counsel made the decision to adduce only appellant’s own testimony at the final hearing held on April 13, 2010. She explained that she was concerned about the children visiting appellee because his behavior indicated that he had not progressed in resolving his addiction problems; stated that his family did not know where he was currently living; and asked that the court continue the supervised visits. Appellee then testified on his own behalf, provided an address where he had moved two weeks earlier1 and introduced evidence that he had tested negative for drugs on drug screening tests conducted by his current employer. He also called as a witness his Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor, who, when questioned about the “motivating factor for appellee’s sobriety” answered that appellee “talks about his children constantly in almost every conversation. But beyond that is just a desire to be whole again.”
