In re Marriage of Debra N.
2013 IL App (1st) 122145
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Debra N. and Michael S. divorced; Aubrey, born March 8, 2004, was the child at issue with a preexisting joint custody arrangement (JPA) providing Debra as residential parent and Michael with regular visitation.
- After the 2007 divorce, Aubrey lived with Debra in Vernon Hills; Debra moved to Wadsworth (39 miles from Michael) in 2009, affecting the feasibility of joint custody.
- Kathryn Somers was appointed Aubrey’s child representative under 750 ILCS 5/506(a)(3) to advocate for Aubrey’s interests and improve parental interactions.
- The trial court heard extensive testimony, including from the court’s 604(b) expert, Dr. Sol Rappaport, who recommended Debra obtain sole custody and Michael receive increased visitation.
- Aubrey’s teacher and counselor also testified about her well‑being and the parental conflict; the court severed joint custody and awarded Michael sole custody, finding Debra interfered with Michael’s relationship and Aubrey’s welfare.
- Debra appealed, arguing the modification was against the manifest weight of the evidence and contrary to the recommendations of the expert and child representative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sole-custody award is against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Debra argues the 604(b) expert and Somers recommended preserving joint custody. | Michael contends the court had broad discretion and the record supports sole custody. | No; the court’s decision not to follow 604(b) or Somers was not against the manifest weight. |
| Whether the court correctly applied the best interests factors in 602. | Debra asserts the court should have followed expert/representative input. | Michael asserts the court properly weighed the factors and found Debra interfering with the relationship. | Yes; the court’s balancing of factors supports sole custody. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by modifying joint custody given the expert and representative opinions. | Debra claims abuse of discretion for not adopting recommendations. | Michael argues modification was warranted by ongoing parental conflict. | No; modification aligned with Aubrey’s best interests and the record evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.W.J., 197 Ill. 2d 492 (Ill. 2001) (overarching best-interests framework for custody decisions)
- Moseley v. Goldstone, 89 Ill. App. 3d 360 (Ill. App. 1980) (trial court given broad deference in custody decisions)
- In re Marriage of Bates, 212 Ill. 2d 489 (Ill. 2004) (great deference to trial court; abuse of discretion standard)
- In re Saheb, 377 Ill. App. 3d 615 (Ill. App. 2007) (604(b) expert advice not binding on court)
- In re Bailey, 130 Ill. App. 3d 158 (Ill. App. 1985) (expert testimony relevant but not binding on custody determination)
- Oros, 256 Ill. App. 3d 167 (Ill. App. 1994) (broad discretion to alter custody to serve child’s best interests)