In re Marriage of Fatkin
129 N.E.3d 1230
Ill.2019Background
- Danielle and Todd Fatkin married in 2004 and have two children (born 2004 and 2010); after dissolution, they had joint custody with Todd awarded primary physical custody.
- Todd filed a petition under 750 ILCS 5/609.2(f) to relocate with the children from East Galesburg, IL to Virginia Beach, VA to live with his parents and pursue employment; Danielle objected.
- The trial court held a three-day hearing and an in camera interview of the 12–13 year-old son; the court found both parents loving and involved but found Todd’s ties, proposed housing with grandparents, and asserted benefits of Virginia Beach persuasive.
- The trial court credited the son’s in camera testimony (including that he preferred relocating and had heard Danielle discuss a possible move to Tennessee), found Danielle’s credibility diminished on that point, and concluded relocation was in the children’s best interests.
- The trial court modified parenting time to a seasonal schedule (children with Todd during the school year in VA; with Danielle in IL over summers/alternating holidays) and reserved child-support/transportation determinations.
- Danielle filed an immediate appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(6); the appellate court held the order was appealable but reversed the trial court as against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Illinois Supreme Court accepted review, held the order was immediately appealable, and reversed the appellate court—affirming the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's order granting relocation is immediately appealable under Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(6) | Danielle: order is not a custody/parental-allocation judgment and thus not immediately appealable | Todd: the order modifies parenting time/allocation of parental responsibilities and is immediately appealable | The Court: Rule 304(b)(6) applies—the relocation order modified parenting time/allocation and was immediately appealable |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion / decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence in granting relocation | Danielle: relocation would harm parent-child relationships (especially daughter) and trial court erred in credibility/findings; appellate court erred in not deferring | Todd: trial court made supported factual findings (son preference, grandparents, better opportunities) and its best-interest decision deserves deference | The Court: trial court's best-interest finding was supported by the record; not against the manifest weight of the evidence; appellate reversal was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324 (Illinois Supreme Court) (standard of review for rule construction)
- In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316 (Illinois Supreme Court) (testimony on best interest and deference to trial court in relocation cases)
- People v. Pittman, 211 Ill. 2d 502 (Illinois Supreme Court) (deference to credibility determinations)
- Gallagher v. Gallagher, 60 Ill. App. 3d 26 (App. Ct.) (observations on factfinder's advantage in custody disputes)
- EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Kemp, 2012 IL 113419 (Illinois Supreme Court) (appellate jurisdiction limited to final judgments unless rule provides otherwise)