In re Parentage of P.D.
2017 IL App (2d) 170355
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Child P.D. (b. 2012); Joan (mother) is residential custodian under a joint-custody judgment with John ("Jack") Alley.
- Joan married Brian, who negotiated a COO position with Function(x) that the employer says now requires relocation to the New York City area; Joan petitioned to relocate P.D. to Short Hills, New Jersey.
- Jack opposed relocation; most of P.D.’s extended family (three sets of grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins) live near Elgin/St. Charles, Illinois.
- Guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended allowing the New Jersey move (changed view from an earlier California petition) and proposed a parenting schedule preserving similar total days for Jack; Joan proposed modifications Jack rejected.
- Trial court denied Joan’s petition after weighing the statutory factors in 750 ILCS 5/609.2(g); trial judge declined to hear closing argument.
- Appellate court affirmed: held trial court’s best-interest determination was not against manifest weight of the evidence and Joan forfeited (and in any event had no right) to closing argument at bench trial.
Issues
| Issue | Joan's Argument | Jack's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal/relocation to New Jersey is in child’s best interests under 750 ILCS 5/609.2(g) | Relocation is needed for Brian’s COO job, keeps family together, increases family income and improves child’s quality of life (better schools, neighborhood). | Move would impair father–son relationship, isolate P.D. from extended family, reduce frequency/quality of contact; proposed visitation plans are impractical and impose travel burdens. | Trial court’s balancing of the 609.2(g) factors (extended family, anticipated impact on child, minimization of impairment, ability to allocate parental responsibilities, etc.) was not against manifest weight of the evidence; denial affirmed. |
| Whether trial court erred by ruling without allowing Joan closing argument | Joan asserts denial of opportunity to present closing argument was reversible error. | Court discretion to permit oral argument at bench trial; no request or objection made at trial. | Argument forfeited (no request/objection). Even on the merits, court did not abuse discretion in declining closing argument in an 8-hour bench trial where judge took extensive notes. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316 (Ill. 1987) (Eckert factors guide best-interest analysis for parental relocation).
- In re Marriage of Collingbourne, 204 Ill. 2d 498 (Ill. 2003) (Eckert factors are not a conjunctive test; court must balance factors).
- In re Marriage of Pfeiffer, 237 Ill. App. 3d 510 (Ill. App. 1992) (deference to trial court on fact‑intensive custody/removal findings).
- Wakeland v. City of Urbana, 333 Ill. App. 3d 1131 (Ill. App. 2002) (standard for manifest weight review).
- Keefer v. Keefer, 107 Ill. App. 2d 74 (Ill. App. 1969) (parental participation after relationship ends remains critical to child’s best interests).