In re Marriage of Smith

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Smith, No. 5‑25‑0235‑U, 2025 IL App (5th) 250235‑U (Aug. 5, 2025) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellee: Beth L. Smith. Respondent‑Appellant: Steven A. Smith. Appeal from St. Clair County Circuit Court (No. 18‑D‑783, Judge Tameeka L. Purchase).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion or entered orders against the manifest weight of the evidence in granting mother’s petition to relocate the children to St. Louis, Missouri.
2) Whether the court erred in denying father’s motion to increase parenting time.
3) Evidentiary/disclosure issues: timeliness of witness disclosure under Ill. S. Ct. R. 218(c) and admissibility of rebuttal witnesses and position statements.

- Holding/outcome
The Fifth District affirmed the trial court’s order granting mother’s relocation request and denying father’s request for additional parenting time, concluding the trial court’s rulings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The appellate court applied the familiar manifest‑weight/abuse‑of‑discretion standard in reviewing a relocation/parenting‑time determination. The record contained contested evidence bearing on the children’s best interests: parents’ work and living arrangements, children’s school and extracurricular ties to Mascoutah, allegations about home conditions and parenting, the children’s preferences, and father’s relevant criminal history (a prior guilty plea and probation for videotaping minors). A guardian ad litem (GAL) had investigated and recommended denying relocation and awarding equal parenting time, but the court is not bound by the GAL’s recommendation. The panel found the trial court’s credibility assessments and factual findings supportable on the record and therefore not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court also exercised discretion to allow a late‑disclosed witness as a rebuttal witness and to permit changes in requested relief reflected in the parties’ position statements; the appellate court did not find reversible error in those procedural rulings.

- Practice implications for attorneys
- Appellate courts give broad deference to trial courts’ credibility determinations and best‑interest balancing in relocation and parenting‑time disputes — develop a strong evidentiary record at trial (schedules, schooling, extracurriculars, living conditions, safety concerns).
- GAL recommendations carry weight but are not dispositive; be prepared to challenge or bolster the GAL’s factual findings at trial.
- Timeliness of witness disclosure under Rule 218 matters, but trial courts may permit late disclosure for rebuttal; preserve objections and demonstrate prejudice if requesting exclusion.
- Address any adverse criminal or safety‑related history head‑on and link it (or rebut it) to best‑interest considerations to influence the court’s discretion.