2018 IL App (5th) 170380
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- William Whitehead and Stephanie Newcomb-Whitehead divorced after separating in 2015; three minor children (born 2007, 2010, 2012) were at issue. Petitioner (William) is an emergency-room nurse with a shift schedule; respondent (Stephanie) works weekdays with a flexible schedule. Petitioner earns substantially more than respondent.
- Guardian ad litem (GAL) interviewed the family, analyzed all 17 factors under 750 ILCS 5/602.7(b), and recommended parenting arrangements after concluding both parents love the children and are capable caregivers.
- Trial court entered a final parenting plan (June 19, 2017) allocating substantial parenting time to both parents: weekday blocks, alternating weekends, and summer adjustments; included an 8-hour right-of-first-refusal (ROFR) for substitute childcare and ordered child support of $1,470/month.
- Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider arguing the court failed to analyze the 602.7 factors on the record, that the ROFR should be 4 hours not 8, that the parenting schedule was not in the children’s best interests, and that child support should be recalculated under a new statute (income‑shares) enacted after the court’s ruling.
- The trial court denied reconsideration; petitioner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Whitehead) | Defendant's Argument (Newcomb-Whitehead) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not explicitly analyzing 602.7 factors when allocating parenting time | Court did not summarize evidence or reference 602.7 factors; therefore failed to consider them | Court considered all evidence including the GAL report that expressly analyzed all 17 factors | No error — presumption that court considered the law; GAL’s detailed 602.7 analysis was before the court |
| Whether the parenting-time schedule is in the children's best interest | Schedule denies petitioner preferred Sunday evenings and is contrary to 602.7 factors | Schedule gives both parents substantial time; factors are essentially balanced and favor neither party strongly | Affirmed — trial court’s best-interest determination not against manifest weight of the evidence |
| Whether ROFR should trigger after 4 hours rather than 8 hours | 4-hour ROFR better protects petitioner’s parenting time; 8 hours allows manipulation by respondent’s flexible schedule | 4-hour ROFR would cause frequent contacts and conflict; 8 hours is reasonable here | Affirmed — 8-hour ROFR not against manifest weight of the evidence |
| Whether child support should be recalculated under the post-judgment income‑shares statute | Change in law (Public Act 99‑764) requires application of new income‑shares model | Court applied law in effect at time of its rulings; new statute enacted after trial court decisions | Denial of reconsideration affirmed — trial court acted under controlling law at time of decision |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Stopher, 328 Ill. App. 3d 1037 (Ill. App. 2002) (trial court’s best-interest findings entitled to deference)
- In re Marriage of Kaplan, 149 Ill. App. 3d 23 (Ill. App. 1986) (credibility assessments are for the trier of fact)
- Weidner v. Midcon Corp., 328 Ill. App. 3d 1056 (Ill. App. 2002) (standard for reviewing denial of motion to reconsider rests in trial court discretion)
- In re Custody of K.P.L., 304 Ill. App. 3d 481 (Ill. App. 1999) (definition of ‘‘against the manifest weight of the evidence’’ in custody context)