In re Marriage of Kreps, 2025 IL App (5th) 250053-U

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—they just don't know it yet. When the Fifth District Appellate Court handed down In re Marriage of Kreps last month, it delivered a masterclass in what happens when trial courts get lazy with their findings. And if you're litigating relocation or modification petitions in Illinois, this case is your new tactical playbook.

Your opposition thinks a favorable ruling at trial ends the fight. Wrong. Kreps demonstrates that a victory without proper factual findings is a house built on sand—and appellate courts will wash it away without hesitation.

What Happened in Kreps

The facts were straightforward enough. Ashley Kreps (now Birdwell) sought to relocate to Indiana for marriage and employment. Brian Kreps opposed and filed a cross-petition to modify parenting time. The Guardian ad Litem recommended maintaining the existing parenting schedule. Evidence showed the child was thriving academically, making progress in speech therapy, and that a DCFS investigation into alleged abuse by petitioner's father came back unfounded.

The trial court denied the relocation and granted the modification of parenting time. Case closed? Not even close.

The Fifth District reversed and remanded both orders. The reason wasn't that the trial court reached the wrong conclusion—it was that the court failed to show its work. No factual findings connecting the evidence to the statutory relocation factors. No articulated reasoning tying the modification to best-interest standards. Just dispositive rulings floating in a vacuum.

That's not justice. That's judicial malpractice.

The Strategic Leverage You're Missing

Here's what separates competent family law attorneys from the ones who actually win: understanding that the trial court's obligation to make findings isn't a technicality—it's your weapon.

Under Section 609.2, a court ruling on relocation must consider specific factors: the child's relationship with both parents, the impact on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development, the feasibility of preserving the relationship with the non-relocating parent, the child's wishes (if appropriate), and more. These aren't suggestions. They're mandatory analytical checkpoints.

When a trial court skips this analysis, you have two plays:

• If you won below: Protect your victory. File a motion requesting specific findings before the judgment becomes final. Force the court to articulate the reasoning that supports your position. Build an appellate-proof record.
• If you lost below: The absence of findings is your appellate lifeline. Kreps confirms that Illinois appellate courts will not rubber-stamp outcomes unsupported by reasoned analysis. A remand isn't a loss—it's a second bite at the apple with a chastened trial court.

The GAL Factor: Documentation as Dominance

Notice what mattered in Kreps: the GAL's reports, school records, therapy progress notes, the DCFS investigation outcome. This is where high-net-worth divorce litigation intersects with forensic-level preparation.

Your opposition thinks they can win on emotional appeals and courtroom theatrics. You're going to bury them in documentation. Every statutory factor should have corresponding exhibits. Every claim should have evidentiary support. When the court must make findings, you've already written the script.

And here's the tech angle your competition ignores: in relocation disputes, digital evidence is increasingly decisive. Communication patterns between parent and child. Location data showing actual parenting time versus scheduled time. Social media posts contradicting claimed reasons for relocation. Electronic records don't lie, and judges increasingly expect them.

If your opposing party has been sloppy with their digital footprint—or worse, if they've been negligent with the child's data security—that's leverage in discovery. Cyber negligence isn't just a business liability issue; it's a parenting fitness issue when your child's information is at stake.

Practical Directives for Illinois Practitioners

Before trial: Draft proposed findings of fact addressing every statutory factor. Whether you're pursuing or opposing relocation, hand the judge a roadmap. Courts appreciate the assist, and you've framed the analysis in your favor.

During trial: Build your record methodically. For each statutory factor, ensure you've elicited testimony and admitted exhibits that directly address it. Don't assume the court will connect the dots—make the connections explicit.

After ruling: If the court's order lacks specific findings, move immediately for clarification or supplemental findings under the applicable rules. Don't wait for appeal to raise the issue. Preserve everything.

On appeal: An inadequate-findings argument is now a proven winner in the Fifth District. Expect other districts to follow. Frame your brief around the analytical gaps, not just the substantive outcome.

The Power Dynamic Shift

Kreps represents a quiet but significant shift in how Illinois appellate courts police relocation and modification disputes. Trial courts can no longer issue conclusory rulings and expect deference. The burden of articulation is real, and attorneys who understand this will dominate the practitioners who don't.

Your opposition is still operating under the assumption that winning at trial means winning the war. You know better. You know that a judgment without findings is vulnerable. You know that meticulous documentation of statutory factors creates appellate insurance. You know that the real fight often happens after the trial court rules.

That knowledge is power. Use it.

If you're facing a relocation dispute or parenting time modification in Illinois—or if you've received an adverse ruling and suspect the court failed to make proper findings—the time to act is now. Every day you wait is a day your opposition uses to fortify a potentially defective judgment. Book a strategic consultation and let's assess whether Kreps gives you the leverage you need to reset the battlefield.