Reynolds v. Reynolds

Summary

Summary: In Reynolds v. Reynolds, 2026 IL 132627 (Sept. 24, 2026), the Illinois Supreme Court held that a motion asking only for more parenting time is governed by section 610.5(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which requires a showing of changed circumstances that necessitate modification to serve the child's best interests, not the heightened "substantial change" test of section 610.5(c). The court overruled In re Marriage of Trapkus to the extent it was inconsistent, reversed a directed finding against the father, and sent the case back to the McHenry County circuit court. For parents, parenting-time-only cases now turn on evidence about the children's best interests rather than on a threshold fight over how dramatic the change has been.

For years, a parent asking an Illinois court for more time with the children could be stopped before the other side ever put on evidence, on the argument that nothing "substantial" or unanticipated had changed since the last order. In Reynolds v. Reynolds, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected that argument for motions that seek parenting time only, resolving a split between the Third District's published decision in Trapkus and later Second and Fourth District orders.

Here is what the court decided, why it changes your leverage posture immediately, and how to build a parenting time case that survives a motion for directed finding.

The Holding: Parenting Time Alone Is Governed by Section 610.5(a)

Section 610.5 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act governs modification of allocation judgments. For years, trial courts across Illinois disagreed about which subsection applied when a parent asked only for more parenting time — not for a change in decision-making authority, not for a flip of majority parenting time, just more time.

The Illinois Supreme Court resolved it. A motion seeking parenting time only falls under section 610.5(a), which requires a showing of changed circumstances that necessitate modification to serve the child's best interests. It does not require the heightened substantial change showing imposed by section 610.5(c).

The court affirmed the appellate court, reversed the circuit court's directed finding, and remanded. It also overruled In re Marriage of Trapkus to the extent that decision was inconsistent.

Read that again, because the practical consequence is enormous: the threshold question in a parenting-time-only modification is no longer whether something dramatic and unforeseeable happened. It is whether circumstances have changed and whether modification now serves the children.

What Actually Happened Below — And Why the Trial Court Got Reversed

The facts are ordinary, which is precisely why they matter to you.

Two never-married parents. Two daughters, born in 2012 and 2014. A 2016 agreed allocation judgment gave the petitioner primary parenting time and significant decision-making responsibility. The respondent received a weekday overnight and alternating weekends, with exchanges at a restaurant.

In 2021, the respondent moved to modify parental responsibilities. By the time he filed his amended motion in May 2023, he had narrowed his request to additional parenting time only. That narrowing was strategically significant, and the Supreme Court's ruling confirms it.

The changes he alleged were not cinematic. They were cumulative and real:

• He had transitioned to remote work with a flexible schedule.
• He had moved into a larger home with a substantial yard, located closer to the children's schools.
• His household had expanded — a new baby and half-siblings.
• The children were older, with different needs than they had in 2016.
• One daughter had received an autism diagnosis after entry of the judgment.

The court-ordered evaluator recommended increasing the respondent's parenting time and moving to school-based pickups and drop-offs to reduce the number of transitions. Notably, the evaluator did not support changing decision-making or majority parenting time. The guardian ad litem recommended one additional day while flagging a concern about one child's commute.

After the respondent rested, the petitioner moved for a directed finding. The circuit court granted it — acknowledging that a prima facie case of "changes" existed, but concluding there was no substantial, unanticipated change under section 610.5(c).

That was the error. The respondent had asked only for parenting time, so section 610.5(a) was the operative standard. Whether the changes were anticipated in 2016 is a subsection (c) consideration, not a subsection (a) requirement. The Supreme Court held that the directed finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence and remanded for the circuit court to decide whether the changes necessitate more parenting time in the children's best interests; if he clears that bar, the hearing resumes with the mother's case. He has not yet won more time. He has won the right to have his request decided under the correct standard.

The Power Dynamic This Creates

Consider what has shifted. For years, the parent holding majority parenting time enjoyed a defensive posture built on inertia: nothing dramatic has happened, so nothing changes. That defense was often enough to end a case at the directed-finding stage without the majority parent ever putting on evidence.

That shield is now substantially thinner in parenting-time-only cases.

If you are the parent seeking more time, your path to a full evidentiary hearing is clearer. If you are the parent defending the existing schedule, you can no longer rely on the heightened standard as a procedural wall. You need a best-interests case — built on evidence, documented, and ready to present.

Both sides should recognize the same thing: this is now a record-building fight, not a threshold-argument fight. The lawyer who shows up with better documentation wins.

Strategic Drafting: Scope Your Motion With Precision

The single most important tactical lesson in Reynolds is about pleading scope.

The respondent's amended motion sought parenting time only. That narrowing is what placed the case squarely under section 610.5(a). Had he continued to seek modification of decision-making responsibility, a different analytical framework would have been in play.

Draft accordingly:

• Decide what you actually need. If your real objective is more time with your children, do not reflexively bundle in a decision-making request that drags your motion into a heavier standard.
• Amend early and cleanly. If your original filing overreached, narrow it before trial — not during closing argument.
• Watch your own characterizations. Language in your pleadings describing the relief as a restructuring of parental responsibilities can be used against you on the standard question.
• Anticipate the directed finding. Assume opposing counsel will move at the close of your case. Build your presentation so the changed-circumstances showing and the best-interests showing are each independently complete.

Building the Changed-Circumstances Record

Section 610.5(a) requires changed circumstances that necessitate modification to serve the child's best interests. That is a real burden — it is simply not the heightened one.

Practical categories that courts engage with, drawn from the fact pattern in Reynolds and from everyday Illinois practice:

Work and Availability

A genuine shift to remote or flexible work is relevant. Document it. Employment letters, written remote-work policies, calendar records, and testimony about actual daily availability carry far more weight than a parent's general assertion that "my schedule is better now."

Reynolds shows why. The circuit court found the father's testimony that remote work gave him more flexibility not credible, because he was working roughly 35 hours or more a week at each of two jobs. The Supreme Court still found the record showed changed circumstances, but the credibility finding is a warning: an availability argument is only as strong as the proof behind it.

Housing and Geography

A move closer to the children's schools, additional bedroom space, and a usable yard are concrete and provable. Photographs, lease or deed documentation, and school-district mapping make this evidence rather than argument.

Household Composition

New siblings and half-siblings change the texture of a child's life in both homes. Present it as relationship evidence, not as a sentimental aside.

The Children's Development

Children who were toddlers at entry of judgment are not toddlers years later. Age-driven changes in schooling, activities, and social life are legitimate changed circumstances — and they are the most commonly underdeveloped category in these motions.

Health and Special Needs

A post-judgment diagnosis — such as the autism diagnosis in Reynolds — is directly relevant to whether the existing schedule still serves the child. Medical records, IEP or 504 documentation, therapist communications, and school reports are the evidentiary backbone here.

Transition Burden

The evaluator in Reynolds recommended school-based exchanges to reduce transitions. Courts care about the lived experience of exchanges. Count them. Map them. Time the drives. A schedule that was reasonable when exchanges happened at a restaurant near two toddlers may be unreasonable once children are in school with activities.

The Technology Layer Most Lawyers Ignore

Here is where these cases are increasingly won and lost, and where evidence is most often left on the table.

Modern parenting disputes are documented in digital exhaust. The parent who understands that arrives at trial with a narrative; the parent who does not arrives with recollection.

• Co-parenting application records. Court-approved messaging platforms generate timestamped, tamper-resistant logs of every communication, schedule change, and cancellation. Pull them. They establish patterns of engagement — or disengagement — far more persuasively than testimony.
• Shared calendars. Years of synced calendar data can establish who actually attended appointments, practices, and conferences.
• School and medical portals. Many systems log which parent logged in, when, and what they accessed. Involvement is now auditable.
• Location and travel data. Commute times and routes can be documented objectively rather than estimated under cross-examination.
• Device and account hygiene. This cuts both directions, and it is where many parents self-inflict serious damage.

Why Digital Negligence Becomes Leverage

Pay attention to this, because it is the part opposing parties consistently underestimate.

Careless digital conduct creates discoverable exposure. Parents who share passwords long after separation, who leave old accounts synced to a former partner's devices, who access a co-parent's email or cloud storage, or who install monitoring software, generate records — and legal problems. Illinois and federal law place real limits on unauthorized access to another person's electronic communications and devices.

In a modification proceeding, that conduct is doubly damaging. It supplies the other side with an evidentiary thread to pull in discovery, and it undermines the offending parent's credibility on the judgment and cooperation questions that drive best-interests analysis. A parent who argues they should have more time while demonstrating they cannot respect basic boundaries has handed the court a reason to say no.

The defensive protocol is straightforward and should be executed before you file anything:

• Change every password and enable two-factor authentication on accounts tied to your own devices.
• Audit and remove former shared-device access, including tablets, vehicles, and smart-home systems.
• Move all co-parenting communication onto a single, preservable platform.
• Preserve — do not delete — anything potentially relevant. Spoliation allegations are far worse than unflattering messages.
• Stop accessing any account that is not yours. Full stop.

Experts, Evaluators, and the GAL

Reynolds is a reminder that professional recommendations carry real weight — and that they are frequently nuanced rather than binary.

The evaluator supported more parenting time and reduced transitions while declining to support a change in decision-making or majority parenting time. The GAL recommended one additional day while raising a commute concern.

Handle these reports with discipline:

• Match your request to the recommendation. A motion that asks for substantially more than any professional in the case supports invites skepticism across the board.
• Address the concerns directly. If a GAL flags a commute, come to court with a transportation plan, a timed route, and a proposed exchange location.
• Know the gaps in the expert's work. In Reynolds, the evaluator acknowledged on cross-examination that he had no direct evidence the child struggled with transitions and had not accounted for upcoming changes in school start times. Whichever side you are on, find those gaps before the hearing.

The Bottom Line

After Reynolds, a parent who asks only for more parenting time must show changed circumstances that make a modification necessary for the children's best interests. That is a real burden, but it is not the "substantial change" test that applies to modifying decision-making or an allocation judgment. Scope the motion carefully, build the best-interests record, and expect the hearing to be decided on evidence rather than on a threshold argument.

If you are considering a request for more parenting time, or responding to one, schedule a consultation to talk through how Reynolds applies to your schedule and your record.

Full opinion: Read the opinion on the Illinois Courts website

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 Check

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.