In re Parentage of P.D.
2017 IL App (2d) 170355
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Mother (Joan) and father (John “Jack”) share joint custody of son P.D.; Joan is residential custodian. Mother sought court permission under 750 ILCS 5/609.2 to relocate with P.D. from Illinois to Short Hills, New Jersey so her husband Brian (Function(x) COO) could be based nearer New York City.
- Father objected, arguing relocation would materially reduce his frequent, regular parenting time and sever P.D.’s ties with paternal extended family in Illinois.
- Guardian ad litem (GAL) initially opposed a prior California move but recommended allowing the New Jersey move, noting improved parental communication and potential family financial/quality-of-life benefits; GAL proposed a modified parenting schedule consolidating extended summer time for father.
- Trial evidence: Brian’s employment agreement “anticipated” Elgin base but employer now expects relocation; Brian currently splits time between Elgin and New York; Joan asserted she could maintain employment in NY area; extended family and most child’s connections are in Illinois.
- Trial court analyzed the statutory 609.2(g) factors, found several factors (extended family, impairment of father–child relationship, practicality of shared parental responsibilities, lack of demonstrated educational advantage, and mother’s attitude toward facilitating father’s relationship) favored denial, and denied relocation. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Joan’s Argument | Jack’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relocation is in child’s best interests under 750 ILCS 5/609.2(g) | Move would keep family together, provide substantial economic and quality-of-life benefits to child and custodial parent; GAL supported move | Move would significantly impair father’s relationship and extended-family ties; logistics and parenting quality would suffer | Court denied relocation; decision not against manifest weight of evidence |
| Whether trial court properly applied statutory 609.2(g) factors (including education, extended family, travel impact, allocation of responsibilities) | Emphasized enhancement of custodial parent’s and child’s quality of life and feasibility of schedules to preserve father time | Emphasized extended-family presence in Illinois, developmental/travel burden on young child, and unresolved logistics/costs | Court considered each statutory factor, gave controlling weight to child-centered factors (family ties, relationship impairment) and found mother did not meet burden |
| Whether mother proved educational advantages in New Jersey outweigh Illinois options | Asserted New Jersey schools and opportunities were superior | Argued mother failed to prove comparative educational advantage or provide documentation | Court found insufficient evidence comparing schools; factor unresolved and did not favor relocation |
| Whether court erred by ruling without allowing closing argument | Requested relief on appeal because no closing argument was heard | Trial court discretion to deny closing in bench trial; counsel did not request argument or object | Forfeited on appeal; alternatively, court did not abuse discretion in bench trial that was short and where judge took notes |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316 (Ill. 1988) (establishes best-interests balancing factors for custodial-parent relocation)
- In re Marriage of Collingbourne, 204 Ill. 2d 498 (Ill. 2003) (clarifies Eckert factors are nonexclusive and no single factor is controlling)
- Wakeland v. City of Urbana, 333 Ill. App. 3d 1131 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (standard for reversal: judgment is against manifest weight only if evidence clearly requires opposite conclusion)
- In re Marriage of Pfeiffer, 237 Ill. App. 3d 510 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (deference to trial court factfinding in custody/removal decisions)