In re Marriage of Erickson is a September 2024 order of the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District. A mother asked to relocate the children about 75 miles, from Bourbonnais to St. Charles. The Kankakee County trial court denied the request and changed the parenting schedule. After a first appeal and a remand, the trial court reached the same result, and the appellate court affirmed.
Key points
- Case: In re Marriage of Erickson, 2024 IL App (3d) 240258-U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. Sept. 24, 2024), No. 3-24-0258, appeal from the Circuit Court of Kankakee County. The earlier appeal is In re Marriage of Erickson, 2023 IL App (3d) 230269-U.
- Weight: This is a Rule 23 order, not a published opinion. It is not binding precedent. Under Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1), orders like this one entered on or after January 1, 2021 may be cited for persuasive purposes only.
- Remand: The trial court's second order was largely identical to its first, but it stated that the court had considered the statutory factors in light of the children's best interests. Without something in the record showing otherwise, the appellate court would not conclude the court had again applied the wrong standard.
- Best interests: The denial of relocation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Seven of the eleven statutory factors were neutral, and the trial court did not have to follow the guardian ad litem's recommendation to allow the move.
- Notice: A parent's failure to give the written notice required by 750 ILCS 5/609.2(d) can be considered in deciding whether the relocation is in good faith. The trial court here considered it but did not rely on it alone.
What happened
Darlena Erickson (now Darlena Gomez) and Cody Erickson divorced in 2017. They have two children. In the allocation judgment they agreed to share decision-making and equal parenting time, and they agreed the children would continue at their private school in Kankakee County. They also agreed not to relocate more than 50 miles from their current residence, or more than 25 miles if they moved to Kane County (among other counties), without the other parent's agreement or leave of court.
On May 10, 2021, Darlena gave Cody written notice that she wanted to relocate from Bourbonnais to St. Charles, approximately 75 miles away. Cody objected. On June 24, 2021, Darlena filed a motion to modify the allocation judgment, asking for leave to relocate and to be named the primary residential parent for school purposes. Four days later she moved to St. Charles. The children kept attending their school, which meant a 90-minute commute each way two or three times a week.
The trial court held an eight-day hearing. It heard from the children's guardian ad litem (GAL), both parents, both of the children's grandmothers, and Cody's wife, and it interviewed the older child in chambers. The GAL testified that the current schedule could not continue because of the distance and travel time, and she recommended allowing the relocation. The trial court denied relocation and modified the schedule: Cody received primary parenting time during the school year and Darlena received primary parenting time during summer break.
In the first appeal, the Third District held that the trial court had used the wrong standard, because it focused on maintaining the status quo instead of the children's best interests. It vacated the ruling and sent the case back for the court to evaluate the statutory factors in light of the children's best interests, based on the evidence already presented. On remand, the trial court issued a seven-page written order that was largely identical to its first one, again denied relocation, and modified parenting time the same way. Darlena appealed again.
What the appellate court decided
1. The trial court applied the correct standard on remand
Darlena argued that the trial court had simply deleted the references to the wrong standard without re-evaluating the evidence. The appellate court disagreed. The new order "specifically states the court considered the statutory factors in accordance with the children's best interests." The court said Darlena "merely speculates" that there was no new evaluation and pointed to nothing in the record showing the trial court failed to follow the remand directions: "Absent any affirmative indication otherwise, we cannot conclude the court applied an improper standard."
2. Denying relocation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence
Relocation decisions turn on the children's best interests, weighed under the 11 factors in section 609.2(g). On review, the court said reviewing courts should not reverse such a decision "unless it is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence and it appears that a manifest injustice has occurred," and that it would not reweigh the evidence.
- Each parent's relationship with the children: The trial court found this factor neutral, noting that "[b]oth parties have been dedicated and involved in the parenting of the minor children" and that "[t]he bulk of the evidence presented shows both parents are loving and nurturing." The GAL reported that the children were closer to their mother, but the appellate court noted she did not suggest that the mother's parenting style was superior or that her love for the children was greater.
- Minimizing harm to the other parent's relationship: The trial court found this factor neutral because "[n]either parent acknowledged in their testimony the potential harm to the other's relationship with the children as a result of the outcome of this litigation, or suggested ways to minimize the impact." The appellate court called this "a fair assessment" and found the new schedule reasonable, "similar to what the GAL recommended, albeit with the roles reversed."
- The GAL's recommendation: The trial court was not bound by it.
The court added that, "although this is not a matter of the trial court merely tallying factors," seven of the eleven best-interest factors were neutral. Because the status quo "was no longer feasible or healthy," the parenting schedule had to change, and "one parent had to receive less parenting time than desired." The trial court tried to counterbalance Cody's school-year time by giving Darlena primary parenting time in the summer.
3. Failure to give proper notice could be considered
Section 609.2(d) requires a parent intending to relocate to give written notice "at least 60 days" before the relocation, unless notice is impracticable or the court orders otherwise. The notice must state, at a minimum, the intended date of the relocation, the new address if known, and how long the relocation will last if it is not indefinite or permanent. The court may consider a failure to comply without good cause "as a factor in determining whether the parent's relocation is in good faith" and as a basis for awarding attorney's fees and costs.
Darlena's notice listed July 10, 2021 as her intended move date, but she moved on June 28, 2021, so she did not give 60 days' notice before the move. The trial court noted her testimony that she gave no consideration to the agreed order's requirement of agreement or leave of court, and found that the move subjected the children to an arduous commute. The appellate court held that the trial court was permitted to consider her noncompliance as a factor in deciding whether the relocation was in good faith, considered it only among the other relevant factors, and did not rely on it alone to deny relocation.
What Erickson means for an Illinois relocation case
- Follow the notice rules and your parenting agreement before you move. Moving before the court rules, or without the notice section 609.2(d) requires, can be weighed against the parent's good faith. It can also create facts, such as long school commutes, that the court may hold against the moving parent.
- A remand does not necessarily produce a different result. If the trial court's new order says it applied the correct standard, the appealing parent needs something in the record showing it did not.
- Bring a workable plan for the other parent. Neither parent here suggested ways to limit the harm to the other parent's relationship with the children, so that factor helped neither side.
- The GAL's recommendation is evidence, not a decision. The trial court may reach a different result if the record supports it.
- Know the case's weight. Erickson is a nonprecedential order. It shows how relocation cases are argued and reviewed and may be cited as persuasive authority, but it does not bind any court.
Sources
- In re Marriage of Erickson, 2024 IL App (3d) 240258-U (Sept. 24, 2024): order on the Illinois Courts website (PDF)
- 750 ILCS 5/609.2 (relocation): Illinois General Assembly
Related reading
This article summarizes one appellate order and general Illinois law as of October 2026. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do appellate decisions affect my divorce case?
Published Illinois appellate opinions can establish precedent that binds trial courts; Rule 23 orders are nonprecedential. A relevant appellate disposition may still inform case strategy, but its publication, citation status, and later history should be checked before relying on it.
Can I appeal my divorce judgment in Illinois?
Yes. A notice of appeal generally must be filed within 30 days after the final judgment (Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)). The appellate court decides legal questions on its own review, reverses factual findings only when they are against the manifest weight of the evidence, and reviews many discretionary rulings for an abuse of discretion.
What does a '-U' designation mean for an Illinois appellate decision?
A -U designation identifies a nonprecedential Rule 23(b) written order. Under Rule 23(e)(1), an order entered on or after January 1, 2021 may be cited for persuasive purposes, but it is not binding precedent. An older Rule 23(b) order may be cited only to support double jeopardy, res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Written by Jonathan D. Steele
Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, ISC2 CC, Google Cybersecurity Professional Certificate). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.
Request Conflict CheckGoing through a divorce? Get the checklist judges wish you had.
Download the free Illinois Divorce Preparation Checklist - the 30 things to do before your first court date. Plus weekly insights from a Chicago family law attorney.
For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.