In re Parentage of V.S.
Nonprecedential Rule 23(b) written order. Because it was entered on or after January 1, 2021, it may be cited for persuasive purposes under Rule 23(e)(1), but it is not binding precedent. Status is based on the stored -U public-domain citation; verify the official disposition and later docket history.
Case Analysis
Overview
Pro se father Paul S. appealed an order permitting the mother, Amber C., to relocate with the parties' five-year-old son from Norridge to McCullom Lake, to modify parenting time from a 50/50 schedule to alternating weekends plus extended breaks, and to set child support. The First District affirmed, holding the best interests determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the incomplete record required the court to presume the support order was proper.
Key Facts
Parents of V.S. (born 2020) had an agreed parenting plan with equal parenting time and shared decision-making.
Amber contracted to buy a McCullom Lake home in December 2024, filed her relocation petition under section 609.2 in early 2025, and moved in June 2025 before leave was granted.
Amber proposed Valley View Elementary (smaller class size); Paul proposed Mark Sheridan Academy in CPS (slightly higher index score).
The GAL testified relocation was not in V.S.'s best interest due to distance and the impact on shared parenting, and said he could not opine on V.S.'s relationship with his half-brother Julian, though he was "sure they're close."
The court reviewed 1400 pages of Our Family Wizard messages, found both parents late to exchanges, Amber slow to respond, and Paul frequently aggressive; it observed Paul unable to control himself in court.
On reconsideration the trial court conceded "limited factual errors" about the GAL's observations of the brothers but did not change its ruling.
The appellate record contained only the GAL transcript — not the testimony of Amber, Paul, or the neighbor, nor the support hearing, financial affidavits, or paystubs.
Procedural History
Cook County circuit court parentage action (No. 22D473, Judge Bradley Trowbridge). After a three-day July 2025 hearing, the court granted relocation in August 2025, modified parenting time, and entered a child support order. Paul's motion to reconsider was denied in February 2026; he appealed. Amber filed no appellee brief; the court proceeded under First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp.
Holdings
The relocation and best interests determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence ; a trial court that acknowledges a minor factual error on reconsideration is not obligated to reweigh the section 609.2(g) factors or explain anew why the correction did not change the result.
The modified parenting schedule was affirmed; absent a complete report of proceedings, the reviewing court presumes the order conformed to law and had a sufficient factual basis ( Foutch ).
The child support order was affirmed on the same Foutch presumption because no transcript, affidavits, or paystubs were supplied.
Request for reassignment to a different judge denied as moot and unwarranted.
Legal Principles
750 ILCS 5/609.2(g) (West 2024) — eleven best interests factors; relocating parent bears the burden by a preponderance ( Kimberly R. v. George S. , 2021 IL App (1st) 201405, ¶ 78).
Best interests is case-by-case and "cannot be reduced to a simple bright-line test" ( In re Marriage of Fatkin , 2019 IL 123602, ¶ 32, quoting Eckert ); not a "simple tally" of factors won ( In re Marriage of Levites , 2021 IL App (2d) 200552, ¶ 71).
A trial court is not bound by a GAL's recommendation ( Taylor v. Starkey , 20 Ill. App. 3d 630 (1974)).
Motions to reconsider are limited to newly discovered evidence, changes in law, or errors in applying existing law ( TCF National Bank v. Richards , 2016 IL App (1st) 152083, ¶ 41).
Appellant's duty to provide a sufficient record; doubts resolved against appellant ( Foutch v. O'Bryant , 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984)).
Eckert and Collingbourne distinguished: neither addresses a "material factual error" in the best interests analysis.
Practical Implications
Order the full report of proceedings. Attacking the sufficiency of a relocation or support order's findings is futile without transcripts; a "facially opaque" support order argument fails under Foutch .
A GAL recommendation against relocation is not dispositive; build the record with the statutory factors, housing, school data, caretakers, and co-parenting conduct (here, OFW messages and in-court demeanor).
Characterize conceded trial court errors precisely — mischaracterizing GAL testimony in a motion to reconsider undermined the appeal; the appellate court independently found the original findings accurate.
Counter-argument for opponents: where a corrected fact was genuinely central to the stated rationale, argue the record shows reliance, not that the label "material factor" applies.
A relocating parent's premature move and noncompliance with the allocation order did not defeat the petition where the reasons were found credible and reasonable.
Limitations/Caveats
Rule 23 order — not precedential except under Rule 23(e)(1). The binding analysis is the manifest-weight affirmance and the Foutch presumptions. The comments about the request for judicial reassignment being "unwarranted in any event" and the court's observation that the GAL's testimony "was not far removed from Amber's statement" are dicta. Because key transcripts were absent, the opinion's factual recitation derives largely from the trial court's written order.
Overview
Pro se father Paul S. appealed an order permitting the mother, Amber C., to relocate with the parties' five-year-old son from Norridge to McCullom Lake, to modify parenting time from a 50/50 schedule to alternating weekends plus extended breaks, and to set child support. The First District affirmed, holding the best interests determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the incomplete record required the court to presume the support order was proper.
Key Facts
Parents of V.S. (born 2020) had an agreed parenting plan with equal parenting time and shared decision-making.
Amber contracted to buy a McCullom Lake home in December 2024, filed her relocation petition under section 609.2 in early 2025, and moved in June 2025 before leave was granted.
Amber proposed Valley View Elementary (smaller class size); Paul proposed Mark Sheridan Academy in CPS (slightly higher index score).
The GAL testified relocation was not in V.S.'s best interest due to distance and the impact on shared parenting, and said he could not opine on V.S.'s relationship with his half-brother Julian, though he was "sure they're close."
The court reviewed 1400 pages of Our Family Wizard messages, found both parents late to exchanges, Amber slow to respond, and Paul frequently aggressive; it observed Paul unable to control himself in court.
On reconsideration the trial court conceded "limited factual errors" about the GAL's observations of the brothers but did not change its ruling.
The appellate record contained only the GAL transcript — not the testimony of Amber, Paul, or the neighbor, nor the support hearing, financial affidavits, or paystubs.
Procedural History
Cook County circuit court parentage action (No. 22D473, Judge Bradley Trowbridge). After a three-day July 2025 hearing, the court granted relocation in August 2025, modified parenting time, and entered a child support order. Paul's motion to reconsider was denied in February 2026; he appealed. Amber filed no appellee brief; the court proceeded under First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp.
Holdings
The relocation and best interests determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence ; a trial court that acknowledges a minor factual error on reconsideration is not obligated to reweigh the section 609.2(g) factors or explain anew why the correction did not change the result.
The modified parenting schedule was affirmed; absent a complete report of proceedings, the reviewing court presumes the order conformed to law and had a sufficient factual basis ( Foutch ).
The child support order was affirmed on the same Foutch presumption because no transcript, affidavits, or paystubs were supplied.
Request for reassignment to a different judge denied as moot and unwarranted.
Legal Principles
750 ILCS 5/609.2(g) (West 2024) — eleven best interests factors; relocating parent bears the burden by a preponderance ( Kimberly R. v. George S. , 2021 IL App (1st) 201405, ¶ 78).
Best interests is case-by-case and "cannot be reduced to a simple bright-line test" ( In re Marriage of Fatkin , 2019 IL 123602, ¶ 32, quoting Eckert ); not a "simple tally" of factors won ( In re Marriage of Levites , 2021 IL App (2d) 200552, ¶ 71).
A trial court is not bound by a GAL's recommendation ( Taylor v. Starkey , 20 Ill. App. 3d 630 (1974)).
Motions to reconsider are limited to newly discovered evidence, changes in law, or errors in applying existing law ( TCF National Bank v. Richards , 2016 IL App (1st) 152083, ¶ 41).
Appellant's duty to provide a sufficient record; doubts resolved against appellant ( Foutch v. O'Bryant , 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984)).
Eckert and Collingbourne distinguished: neither addresses a "material factual error" in the best interests analysis.
Practical Implications
Order the full report of proceedings. Attacking the sufficiency of a relocation or support order's findings is futile without transcripts; a "facially opaque" support order argument fails under Foutch .
A GAL recommendation against relocation is not dispositive; build the record with the statutory factors, housing, school data, caretakers, and co-parenting conduct (here, OFW messages and in-court demeanor).
Characterize conceded trial court errors precisely — mischaracterizing GAL testimony in a motion to reconsider undermined the appeal; the appellate court independently found the original findings accurate.
Counter-argument for opponents: where a corrected fact was genuinely central to the stated rationale, argue the record shows reliance, not that the label "material factor" applies.
A relocating parent's premature move and noncompliance with the allocation order did not defeat the petition where the reasons were found credible and reasonable.
Limitations/Caveats
Rule 23 order — not precedential except under Rule 23(e)(1). The binding analysis is the manifest-weight affirmance and the Foutch presumptions. The comments about the request for judicial reassignment being "unwarranted in any event" and the court's observation that the GAL's testimony "was not far removed from Amber's statement" are dicta. Because key transcripts were absent, the opinion's factual recitation derives largely from the trial court's written order.
Disclaimer: This case summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. Always consult with a licensed attorney for specific legal questions.
Questions About Relocation?
Start with a conflict-check intake. If cleared, our office can discuss notice, timing, and the statutory process.
Start Conflict-Check IntakeLegal Assistant
This tool answers general questions about the text of this summary. It does not give legal advice, it does not know the facts of your case, and its answers may be wrong.
Disclaimer: This AI analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Always verify any AI-generated content against the official court opinion.