In re: Marriage of Tedrick
2015 IL App (4th) 140773
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Lindsay Tedrick (mother) is the residential parent under a 2013 dissolution judgment awarding joint legal custody of daughter A.T. (born 2007).
- Lindsay worked long hours in a stressful controller/VP finance role in Illinois, suffered health problems, sought work elsewhere, and accepted a fiscal analyst position at the University of South Carolina; she moved with A.T. to South Carolina in June 2014.
- Jonathan Tedrick (father) lives in DeWitt, Illinois, has regular visitation under the parenting agreement (two weekends per month and summer periods), and works a schedule he changed to increase time with A.T.
- After the move, A.T. attended higher-rated schools and different day care; father continued to exercise visitation, including flying A.T. unaccompanied on at least one occasion.
- The guardian ad litem recommended granting removal, finding the move would improve the mother’s well-being and allow more time with A.T.; the trial court denied the removal principally because of travel concerns for a seven‑year‑old.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court’s best‑interest finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence and remanded with directions to adopt a new, liberal visitation schedule for the father.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lindsay) | Defendant's Argument (Jonathan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether removal is in the child’s best interest | Move improves mother’s health, work hours, family support, and child’s environment | Move will reduce and burden visitation and disrupt child’s relationships | Reversed: removal is in child’s best interest; trial court’s denial against manifest weight |
| 2) Would removal likely improve quality of life for mother and child | New job: fewer hours, less stress, family support, better school opportunities | Loss of proximity to paternal family and friends harms child | Appellate: removal likely improves both mother’s and child’s quality of life |
| 3) Mother’s motive for moving | Good‑faith employment and family support reasons, not to thwart access | Implicit concern that move could interfere with visitation | Court found mother’s motive bona fide (not a ruse) |
| 4) Whether a reasonable visitation schedule can preserve parent–child bond | Propose less frequent but longer visits, air travel arranged; quality over frequency | Travel burden on a seven‑year‑old and loss of weekday/nearby contact | Appellate: feasible realistic schedule exists; travel concerns insufficient to deny removal; remand to craft liberal visitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Collingbourne v. Collingbourne, 204 Ill. 2d 498 (Ill. 2003) (sets nonexclusive best‑interest factors for removal decisions)
- Ford v. Marteness, 368 Ill. App. 3d 172 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (noting that refusal to allow removal whenever visitation would be reduced would make removals nearly impossible)
- Wakeland v. City of Urbana, 333 Ill. App. 3d 1131 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (standard for reversal when decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence)
- Shaddle v. Shaddle, 317 Ill. App. 3d 428 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (removal review: visitation schedule need not be perfect; must be reasonable and realistic)
- Ludwinski v. Ludwinski, 312 Ill. App. 3d 495 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (custodial parent’s job‑search scope in removal analysis is of limited consequence)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 352 Ill. App. 3d 605 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (removal decisions are highly fact‑specific and not easily compared across cases)