In re Marriage of Adams
92 N.E.3d 962
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Spencer and Lisa Adams divorced in 2015; JPA awarded joint legal custody, Lisa primary physical custody, Spencer secondary, with a transportation clause tied to 75 miles of Verona.
- In 2016 Lisa moved the children from the Chicago area to Belleville (≈324 miles) for a job; she did not file a court relocation petition or obtain Spencer’s consent and provided notice to him three days before moving.
- Spencer filed petitions in August 2016 seeking contempt, emergency and permanent modification of parenting time (seeking majority parenting time) and a TRO to prevent the move; emergency relief was denied and a full modification hearing was set.
- At the May 2017 hearing the trial court found Lisa knew of the move earlier, hid it from Spencer, and the distance made Spencer’s existing extensive visitation schedule infeasible; the court concluded relocation was not in the children’s best interests.
- The trial court modified parenting time to give Spencer majority parenting time (mother retained long-weekend visits and five weeks in summer); Lisa appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the 2016 amended relocation statute apply to this case? | Spencer: amended Act applies to pending proceedings and to this relocation. | Lisa: statute restricting in-state relocation was not law when decree entered in 2015. | Court: amended Act applies to pending matters; statute governs because relocation and petitions occurred after amendment. |
| Was there adequate pleading/notice for modification (due process)? | Spencer: his petitions sought permanent modification of parenting time; Lisa had notice and participated. | Lisa: May 2017 hearings were effectively relocation hearings and she lacked proper notice of modification. | Court: Pleadings sufficiently put Lisa on notice; modification proceeding properly before trial court. |
| Was relocation alone sufficient to modify parenting time; did evidence show a substantial change warranting modification in children’s best interests? | Spencer: relocation constituted a substantial change; existing visitation schedule became impracticable; best interests favored awarding him majority time. | Lisa: modification was punitive for relocating; father would remain uninvolved in school and miss events; disruption would occur whichever parent had majority time. | Court: Relocation can be a substantial change; trial court appropriately considered Eckert/602.7 factors and did not abuse discretion—modification not against manifest weight of evidence. |
| Did the trial court improperly punish Lisa for relocating without permission (abuse of discretion)? | Spencer: mother’s concealment and failure to propose workable plan justified reallocation of time. | Lisa: order was punitive and failed to properly weigh best-interest factors and parents’ abilities. | Court: Trial court considered relevant factors (including mother’s concealment and family ties) and its factual findings were supported; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316 (codified relocation factors for custody/relocation analysis)
- In re Marriage of Bates, 212 Ill. 2d 489 (standards for reviewing modification of custody/parenting time)
- In re Marriage of Smith, 162 Ill. App. 3d 792 (retroactivity/application of amended marriage-act provisions to pending cases)
- Mathey v. Mathey, 1 Ill. App. 3d 1008 (relocation without leave not, by itself, sufficient to modify custody)