In re Marriage of O'Hare
79 N.E.3d 712
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Theresa O’Hare and Ronald Stradt divorced in March 2010; the decree allocated roughly 56% parenting time to O’Hare and 44% to Stradt with specific midweek and alternating-weekend visitation.
- In December 2015–May 2016 Stradt sought modifications (including sole custody and increased parenting time); several motions and mediation occurred; counsel withdrew and Stradt proceeded pro se.
- In August 2016 Stradt filed the motion at issue: trade his every-other-Tuesday plus every-other-Wednesday–Friday schedule for every Wednesday–Friday, increasing his parenting time by ~6% to reach 50/50 sharing.
- O’Hare moved to dismiss under section 2-615, arguing Stradt pleaded only conclusions (no changed circumstances) and that the requested change was not a “minor modification” under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(e)(2).
- The trial court granted the dismissal, concluding that an additional overnight every 14 days moving custody toward equal time was not a “minor modification.” Stradt appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting a section 2-615 dismissal by failing to accept as true well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences | Stradt: court should have accepted his allegations that a 6% increase was a minor modification and in child’s best interest | O’Hare: Stradt alleged only legal/conclusory statements without specific supporting facts, so dismissal proper | Held: Dismissal proper — many allegations were legal conclusions or unsupported factual conclusions, which court need not accept |
| Whether the requested change qualifies as a “minor modification” under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(e) so as to avoid the usual changed-circumstances requirement | Stradt: a 6% increase and proposed schedule promotes best interests and statutory purposes and is a minor modification | O’Hare: the proposed change alters primary custodial status toward equal time and is not minor | Held: Not a minor modification — a shift to equal sharing is not “minor”; plain statutory language and policy favor finality of parenting orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Blumenthal v. Brewer, 69 N.E.3d 834 (Illinois 2016) (standard for ruling on a section 2-615 motion)
- In re N.C., 12 N.E.3d 23 (Illinois 2014) (rules of statutory construction; review de novo)
- Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 976 N.E.2d 318 (Illinois 2012) (courts need not accept conclusory factual allegations)
- In re Marriage of Wycoff, 639 N.E.2d 897 (Ill. App. 1994) (policy favoring continuity/finality of parenting plans)