This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

H filed a petition to dissolve his 1978 marriage to W. They have one child. W petitioned for entry of a bifurcated judgment of dissolution of marriage, asserting that 'appropriate circumstances' for bifurcation existed, as mandated by section 401(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 40, par. 401(b)). H moved to strike the petition for bifurcation of judgment for failure to state a cause of action and to withdraw his petition for dissolution of marriage. H petitioned the court 'for [substitution] of [judges],' insisting that he '[feared] * * * he [would] not receive a fair and impartial hearing in the court in which this cause is now pending due to this [court] being prejudiced against him,' and that he filed the petition prior to trial and before the 'ruling on any substantive issue.' Both the motion to dismiss and the motion to change venue were denied. After a hearing, the court granted a bifurcated judgment of dissolution reserving '[all] other issues of child custody and visitation, property division and attorneys' fees.' The court found an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage due to irreconcilable differences between the parties and that appropriate circumstances existed for the entry of a bifurcated judgment, namely: W is presently pregnant by her fiancé whom she earnestly wishes to marry as soon as possible and coverage for birth and all other maternity expenses can be had under the medical insurance coverage held by the fiancé. H appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.