Banister v. Partridge
984 N.E.2d 598
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Leah Guffey Banister and Randolph Partridge are the child's parents; D.G. (born 2002) is their son.
- Leah remarried Thomas Banister and moved with D.G. to Kentucky in 2011, seeking permission to relocate permanently.
- The trial court granted Leah leave to move D.G. to Kentucky in December 2011, and later denied her petition to move to Maine.
- Randy challenged the Kentucky move and pursued custody and contempt-related actions; the court held hearings and issued various orders between 2011–2012.
- In 2012 the court denied Leah’s petition to remove D.G. to Maine, and Randy appealed; the appellate court reversed the denial regarding the Maine removal while affirming certain contempt and jurisdictional rulings.
- The court ultimately affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that D.G.’s best interests supported removing him to Maine despite distance from Randy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to hear a subsequent removal petition | Banister argues the court lacked statutory authority to consider Maine removal | Partridge contends authority exists under 609/Parentage Act | Yes, court had authority to hear the removal petition |
| Best interests of D.G. regarding Maine removal | Banister contends Maine move benefits D.G. and preserves family life | Partridge argues Maine move harms bond with Randy and is not feasible | Removal to Maine is in D.G.’s best interests; reversal of trial court’s denial |
| Contempt for Kentucky move and enforceability of admonition | Partridge seeks contempt for enrolling D.G. in Kentucky school | Banister acted without willful violation of admonition | Trial court did not abuse its discretion; no contempt shown |
| Jurisdiction under Rule 304(b)(6) and mootness | Partridge argues Rule 304(b)(6) divested jurisdiction | Banister asserts continued consideration is warranted | Moot; need not decide detailed Rule 304(b)(6) issue |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316 (Ill. 1988) (establishes Eckert factors for best interests in removal cases)
- In re Marriage of Lange, 307 Ill. App. 3d 303 (Ill. App. 1999) (trial court may enforce custody/visitation and consider removal without denying authority to hear petition)
- In re Parentage of Tavares, 363 Ill. App. 3d 964 (Ill. App. 2006) (confirms authority to enforce custody via removal petitions; distinction from Lange acknowledged)
- Demaret, 2012 IL App (1st) 111916 (Ill. App. 1st 2012) (removal best-interest framework and contact with both parents considerations)