In re Marriage of Erikson

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Erikson, 2024 IL App (3d) 240258‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., Order filed Sept. 24, 2024) (filed under Sup. Ct. Rule 23 — nonprecedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Darlena Gomez (n/k/a Darlena Erickson). Respondent‑Appellee: Cody Erickson. Two minor children (born 2010 and 2014).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner leave to relocate the children approximately 75 miles and in modifying the parenting time allocation.
- Whether the court applied the correct legal standard (children’s best interests/statutory relocation factors versus improperly preserving the status quo) and whether its decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The Third District concluded the trial court’s denial of relocation and its modified parenting‑time allocation (respondent primary during school year; petitioner primary during summer) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Background: parties had equal parenting time post‑dissolution and an agreement restricting relocation without consent/leave of court. Petitioner moved to St. Charles, sought leave to relocate and educational primary custody; children continued attending private school requiring lengthy commutes.
- Prior appellate remand: the appellate court previously vacated and remanded because the trial court had relied improperly on preserving the status quo rather than evaluating statutory factors in light of the children’s best interests; the remand directed the trial court to reassess the statutory factors based on existing evidence.
- On remand the trial court again denied relocation but modified time to reflect practical realities of distance. The appellate court found the trial court adequately considered testimony from the guardian ad litem, parents, relatives, the in‑camera child interview (12‑year‑old’s preference for mother’s home), travel burdens, school opportunities, parental bonds, and practical effects on parenting time and homework/parental involvement. The court credited findings that lengthy commutes and logistical burdens made the prior schedule unsustainable and that a shift in majority time during the school year was appropriate to protect the children’s routine and well‑being.
- The appellate court concluded the trial court’s findings were supported by the record and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

5. Practice implications
- When litigating relocation:
- Ensure the trial court expressly addresses each statutory relocation/best‑interest factor on the record (school comparisons, travel burden, parental bonds, child preference and age, extracurriculars, effect on parental involvement).
- Develop evidence on practical logistics (commute times, homework supervision, extracurricular scheduling) and propose workable alternative parenting schedules if relocation is permitted.
- Use GAL and in‑camera testimony strategically; elicit concrete comparisons of educational options rather than conclusory assertions.
- Anticipate appellate scrutiny: make explicit findings to show the decision is based on children’s best interests, not mere preservation of the status quo.