In re Marriage of Perez
29 N.E.3d 1217
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Stacey filed for dissolution; the circuit court entered a temporary order granting joint legal custody with Stacey having physical custody and Robert visitation on an alternating schedule.
- At a 2014 hearing, both parties sought joint legal custody and argued for primary physical custody, with cooperation alleged by both sides.
- Post-separation Stacey remained in East Moline with S.P.; she was under-employed (~$16,000/year) after leaving a higher-paying prior role.
- Robert earned approximately $80,000/year as a corrections department barber, with a relatively flexible schedule; both parents were heavily involved in S.P.’s life.
- The court found both parents and extended family good caregivers, approved a 50/50 physical custody arrangement, and ordered child support adjustments and limited maintenance.
- The dissolution judgment reflected joint custody, 50/50 care, equal input on major decisions, right of first refusal, and a $534 monthly child support amount after offsets, with Stacey receiving $800/month maintenance in gross for 15 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 50/50 equal parenting time was appropriate | Perez asserts equal time disfavored under Illinois law. | Perez contends 50/50 requires clear evidence of cooperation and proximity. | Not abuso; 50/50 upheld given cooperation and proximity. |
| Whether equal parenting time serves S.P.’s best interests | Stacey argues imbalances would harm stability. | Robert argues shared schedule maintains stability and ties with extended family. | Court finding favored continued maximum parental involvement. |
| Whether either parent should be designated as primary residence | Stacey seeks designation as residential custodian due to birth ties. | No need for primary designation; proximity and cooperation support joint system. | Court did not designate a primary residence; joint approach permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Marcello, 247 Ill. App. 3d 304 (1993) (joint custody with cooperation and proximity supports custody outcome)
- In re Marriage of Seitzinger, 333 Ill. App. 3d 103 (2002) (both parents’ involvement supports joint custody)
- In re Marriage of Swanson, 275 Ill. App. 3d 519 (1995) (joint custody requires unusual cooperation; caution on stability)
- Hacker, 239 Ill. App. 3d 658 (1992) (remanding to provide permanency in custody schedule)
- Davis v. Davis, 63 Ill. App. 3d 465 (1978) (strong trial-court presumption favors custodial judgment)