In re Marriage of Coulter
976 N.E.2d 337
Ill.2012Background
- Divorced parents have three minor children; JPA incorporated into dissolution judgment allowing removal to California after two years if conditions are met.
- Removal to California was contemplated by the JPA; Lee agreed to removal subject to notice and conditions.
- Amy notified Lee of intent to relocate five days before the second anniversary of judgment; Lee did not respond or engage in mediation.
- Lee filed an emergency petition seeking to enjoin removal two months before the mediation window expired; Amy filed a petition for temporary removal.
- Circuit court denied the injunction; appellate court reversed; this court granted leave to appeal to determine if the JPA and judgment granted leave to remove.
- Question presented: whether the JPA incorporated into the dissolution judgment constitutes leave under section 609 to remove
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does incorporation of the JPA into the dissolution judgment give leave to remove under 609? | Lee argues no leave; removal not authorized without court order | Amy contends JPA, incorporated, grants leave to remove if conditions are met | Yes; JPA incorporated granted leave to remove if conditions satisfied |
| Did Lee’s waiver and failure to contest removal bar relief? | Lee waived contest by not challenging removal | Waiver should not undermine best-interests assessment; but removal was allowed | Withdrawal of contest consistent with denial of injunction; removal allowed |
| Was there a best-interests determination required before removal? | Best interests must be determined by court | Parties’ agreement evidences best interests; deference due to parents | Not required; agreement evidenced best interests and public policy favors enforceability |
| What options remain if circumstances changed after judgment? | Modification by custody order under 610 may be warranted | Removal already authorized; modification not necessary unless substantial change | Lee may seek modification under 610; petition pending |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (Supreme Court 2000) (presumption of parental decision-making in best interests)
- Wickham v. Byrne, 199 Ill. 2d 309 (Ill. 2002) (deference to the parental allocation in custody matters)
- Boehmer, 371 Ill. App. 3d 1154 (Ill. App. 2007) (distinguishes when JPA was not previously an order of the court)
- Carver v. Sheriff of La Salle County, 203 Ill. 2d 497 (Ill. 2003) (strong public policy favoring amicable settlements in divorce cases)
- In re Guardianship of Babb, 162 Ill. 2d 153 (Ill. 1994) (public policy favoring negotiated settlements in dissolution matters)
- Rakowski v. Lucente, 104 Ill. 2d 317 (Ill. 1984) (policy favoring negotiated settlement and cooperation between parents)
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (Ill. 2009) (interpretation of contracts incorporated into judgments; enforceability of terms)