Erik S. v. Hollie S.
2025 IL App (4th) 241337-U
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Erik S. and Hollie S. divorced in 2015 and entered into a co-parenting agreement granting Hollie sole legal custody of their daughter, T.S., with Erik receiving limited parenting time.
- The original agreement anticipated that Erik’s parenting time would increase as T.S. aged, but by 2021, Erik had only two overnights with T.S. every two weeks.
- Erik sought modification of the parenting time schedule in 2021, claiming changed circumstances including T.S. growing older, changes in both parents' work situations, and ongoing conflicts regarding flexibility and cooperation.
- The trial court denied Erik’s motion, requiring a showing of a "substantial change in circumstances" rather than the "changed circumstances" standard set by statute, and did not proceed to a best-interest analysis.
- On appeal, Erik argued that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard and that both the facts and law supported a best-interest hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable legal standard for modifying parenting time | Erik: Only "changed circumstances" (not substantial) is required under the statute for modification | Hollie: Implied the standard should be "substantial change in circumstances" | Court agrees with Erik; only "changed circumstances" is required |
| Whether aging of a child may be a changed circumstance | Erik: Child's increasing age and maturity qualify as changed circumstances | Hollie: Aging alone is not enough; no major changes warranting modification | Court: Aging and maturation, within context, can be a changed circumstance |
| Did evidence show sufficient change of circumstances? | Erik: Changes in work, T.S.’s age, and relationship progression support modification | Hollie: No significant change; circumstances were anticipated at the time of agreement | Court: Evidence showed sufficient changed circumstances |
| Should the request be evaluated under the best-interest standard? | Erik: Best-interest analysis was required after showing changed circumstances | Hollie: No sufficient threshold showing to proceed to best-interest | Court: Trial court erred by not proceeding; remanded for best-interest determination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Davis, 341 Ill. App. 3d 356 (maturation of a child may constitute a change in circumstances for parenting modification)
- In re Marriage of Andersen, 236 Ill. App. 3d 679 (child's aging and needs are factors for change-in-circumstances analysis)
- In re Marriage of Debra N., 2013 IL App (1st) 122145 (trial court must determine best interests if change in circumstances shown)
- In re Marriage of Wycoff, 266 Ill. App. 3d 408 (GAL is the eyes and ears of the court in parenting cases)