In re Marriage of Kavchak
107 N.E.3d 287
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Greg and Alicia Kavchak divorced; their daughter S.K. (born 2011) lived primarily in Downers Grove, Illinois. The dissolution judgment gave shared decision-making and a two‑week rotating parenting schedule.
- Alicia accepted an assistant professor position at High Point University (North Carolina) that required relocation to keep the job and offered tuition for a Ph.D.; she sought leave to relocate with S.K. in a section 609.2 petition.
- Alicia planned to enroll S.K. at Westchester Country Day School (private, ~ $12,000/yr); Alicia’s mother planned to move with them and assist; Alicia offered to pay travel for S.K. to visit Greg monthly and to host Greg in North Carolina during his parenting time.
- Both parties presented expert psychologists who agreed the move would disrupt Greg’s relationship with S.K. but differed on whether the child would benefit overall; experts and the trial court described the decision as a close call.
- The trial court granted Alicia’s relocation petition, modified the parenting-time schedule (alternating weekends, extended summer blocks, holidays/break allocations), ordered Alicia to enroll S.K. at Westchester and to pay tuition, and allocated travel costs between the parents. Greg appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Greg) | Defendant's Argument (Alicia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s relocation order is against the manifest weight of the evidence | Relocation unreasonably reduces and impairs Greg’s parenting time and relationship with S.K., imposes travel/hotel burdens and costs, and the claimed benefits (salary, housing, daycare, free college) are speculative or unsupported | Relocation preserves Alicia’s unique career/Ph.D. opportunity, will increase her available time with S.K. (shorter commute, campus hours), reduce daycare need, and Alicia and her mother will provide housing/support; proposed schedule provides generous parenting time and travel arrangements | Affirmed — trial court properly weighed section 609.2 factors, its best‑interest determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence |
| Whether the trial court erred in sua sponte ordering enrollment at Westchester | Court lacked pleading authority to decide school enrollment sua sponte and should have followed the allocation judgment’s mediation process for significant disputes | Alicia’s relocation motion explicitly stated intent to enroll S.K. in a North Carolina private school; schooling was litigated at the hearing and Greg had notice and opportunity to object; Alicia will pay tuition | Affirmed — school enrollment was litigated and within the relief sought; court did not err in ordering enrollment at Westchester |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill.2d 316 (discusses best‑interest standard and factors for removal/relocation)
- In re Marriage of Collingbourne, 204 Ill.2d 498 (explains balancing of relocation factors and direct/indirect benefits to the child)
- Best v. Best, 223 Ill.2d 342 (standard for reversing child‑custody/best‑interest findings; defer to trial court unless against manifest weight)
- In re Marriage of Smith, 172 Ill.2d 312 (precedent on removal/relocation considerations)