In re Marriage of Fatkin
116 N.E.3d 981
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Danielle and Todd Fatkin divorced; court awarded joint custody with Todd as primary physical custodian and Danielle parenting time including 6 of every 14 nights and daily after‑school access during the school week.
- Todd filed a postdissolution petition under 750 ILCS 5/609.2 to relocate with the two children from Knox County, Illinois to live with his parents in Virginia Beach, Virginia; Danielle objected.
- Evidence at a three‑day hearing: Todd was underemployed in Illinois, would live rent‑free with his parents in Virginia Beach, and produced a letter of intent for retail work; he asserted better schools, VA medical care, and extended family support in Virginia Beach.
- Danielle was a tenure‑track professor, heavily involved in daily parenting, school activities, and extracurriculars; children had established friends and activities in Illinois; son had declining grades and reported bullying.
- Trial court granted relocation, finding factors (employment prospects, extended family, school diversity, child preferences) favored relocation and that a reasonable allocation of parental responsibilities could be fashioned; court reserved child‑support and travel‑cost issues.
- Appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding it had jurisdiction under Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(6) and that granting relocation was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Danielle's Argument | Todd's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction under Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(6) — whether relocation order is an appealable modification of allocation of parental responsibilities | The relocation order effectively modified the prior joint custody/allocation and thus is appealable under Rule 304(b)(6) despite reserved issues | The remaining reserved issues (child support/transportation) mean the order was not final and not appealable; relocation is not a custody modification per precedents | Court held the relocation order substantially modified allocation of parental responsibilities and was appealable under Rule 304(b)(6); appellate jurisdiction exists |
| Whether trial court erred in granting relocation under 750 ILCS 5/609.2 (child’s best interests) | Relocation was not in children’s best interests: Danielle’s daily involvement, children’s stability, established friendships, uncertain employment and caregiving plan in Virginia, grandmother’s poor health, lack of objective proof that Virginia schools are superior | Relocation would improve children’s quality of life: better schools and extracurriculars, extended family support, better VA healthcare; Todd credible about benefits and job prospects | Court held trial court’s best‑interest finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence and reversed the relocation order; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Gutman, 232 Ill. 2d 145 (Ill. 2008) (Rule 304(a) finality principles and appealability of orders)
- In re Marriage of Bednar, 146 Ill. App. 3d 704 (Ill. App. 1986) (holding removal petition not necessarily a custody modification)
- In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316 (Ill. 1988) (best‑interests standard and deference to trial court findings in custody/relocation disputes)
- Leopando v. Leopando, 96 Ill. 2d 114 (Ill. 1983) (historical rule treating dissolution as single claim; discussed in Rule 304 revisions)