In re Marriage Kreps
Nonprecedential Rule 23(b) written order.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it was entered on or after January 1, 2021, it may be cited for persuasive purposes under Rule 23(e)(1), but it is not binding precedent.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
In this second appeal, the Fifth District affirmed the circuit court's orders, entered on remand with supporting factual findings, denying the mother's petition to relocate with the parties' son from White County, Illinois to Evansville, Indiana, and granting the father's petition to modify parental responsibilities/parenting time. The court held neither ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Key Facts
Brian and Ashley divorced in August 2021; agreed parenting plan gave shared significant decision-making, Ashley most parenting time, and designated Brian's home as O.K.'s residential address for school enrollment.
Ashley petitioned to reduce Brian's weeknight parenting time (sleep, homework, alleged alienation); Brian filed a verified petition for abuse of allocated parenting time, and Ashley admitted making statements including that she would have Brian in court "every year for the next thirteen years."
Ashley's amended petition alleged the paternal grandfather struck O.K.; the DCFS report she called in was unfounded, and O.K. reported no trouble with him.
June 2024: Ashley gave notice of intent to relocate to Evansville to marry William Birdwell and take a teaching job; she moved and enrolled O.K. in Indiana school before a ruling.
Both GAL reports favored the status quo; the GAL expressed concern that Ashley coached O.K. ("Mom says Dad says ***").
Evidence showed O.K. had severe speech deficits that greatly improved with therapy Brian scheduled and supported; O.K. earned straight A's, had no tardies, and was not observed tired at school.
Trial court denied relocation and modified parenting time; this court previously reversed and remanded for factual findings ( In re Marriage of Kreps , 2025 IL App (5th) 250053-U). On remand the court made findings and reached the same result.
Procedural History
Circuit Court of White County, No. 21-D-39 (Judge Thomas J. Dinn III). Two-day bench trial December 2024; January 9, 2025 order denied relocation and modified parenting time; reversed and remanded for findings (2025 IL App (5th) 250053-U); April 29, 2026 order on remand with findings; new parenting plan approved May 6, 2026; timely appeal to the Fifth District.
Holdings
Denial of the relocation petition was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the trial court analyzed each factor under section 609.2(g) and the findings were not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unsupported by the evidence.
Modification of parenting time under section 610.5 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; because relocation was denied and O.K. would primarily live with Brian during the school week, the schedule required modification.
Legal Principles
750 ILCS 5/609.2 (relocation; 609.2(g) best-interest factors; 609.2(d) notice noncompliance relevant to good faith); 750 ILCS 5/600(d) (parental responsibilities); 750 ILCS 5/610.5(a) (parenting time modified on changed circumstances serving best interests). In re Marriage of Fatkin , 2019 IL 123602, ¶ 32, and In re Marriage of Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2d 498 (manifest weight review of relocation). Reynolds v. Reynolds , 2025 IL App (2d) 240028, ¶ 33 (modifying parenting time requires only "changed" circumstances, while modifying the parenting plan requires a "substantial change"). In re Marriage of Virgin , 2021 IL App (3d) 190650, ¶ 45; In re Marriage of Bates , 212 Ill. 2d 489 (evidence viewed in light most favorable to appellee); In re Keyon R. , 2017 IL App (2d) 160657, ¶ 16; Lawlor , 2012 IL 112530, ¶ 70; Vancura , 238 Ill. 2d 352.
Practical Implications
Insist on express factor-by-factor findings; the first appeal succeeded solely because findings were missing, but findings on remand insulated the same result.
Relocation motivated primarily by remarriage, without child-focused proof, invites a finding that the move serves the parent, not the child.
Comparing school districts via how a new spouse's children fare may be dismissed as anecdotal; bring objective data on the receiving school.
Unfounded abuse reports, coaching concerns, withheld parenting time, and unilateral enrollment before a ruling can be weighed under section 609.2(g)(11) and 609.2(d) good faith.
Document structure, routine, therapy involvement, and academic outcomes—this evidence carried the day for the objecting parent.
Distinguishing points: shorter distances, a child old/mature enough for a credited preference, or a parent with a clean good-faith record.
Limitations/Caveats
Rule 23 order—not precedent except under Rule 23(e)(1), and subject to correction before rehearing disposition. The holdings are fact-bound applications of manifest-weight review; the court's recitation of the trial court's factor findings is description, not independent legal rule-making. Note the opinion's reference to the relocation request as a "substantial change in circumstances" while also citing the lesser "changed circumstances" standard for parenting time.
Overview
In this second appeal, the Fifth District affirmed the circuit court's orders, entered on remand with supporting factual findings, denying the mother's petition to relocate with the parties' son from White County, Illinois to Evansville, Indiana, and granting the father's petition to modify parental responsibilities/parenting time. The court held neither ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Key Facts
Brian and Ashley divorced in August 2021; agreed parenting plan gave shared significant decision-making, Ashley most parenting time, and designated Brian's home as O.K.'s residential address for school enrollment.
Ashley petitioned to reduce Brian's weeknight parenting time (sleep, homework, alleged alienation); Brian filed a verified petition for abuse of allocated parenting time, and Ashley admitted making statements including that she would have Brian in court "every year for the next thirteen years."
Ashley's amended petition alleged the paternal grandfather struck O.K.; the DCFS report she called in was unfounded, and O.K. reported no trouble with him.
June 2024: Ashley gave notice of intent to relocate to Evansville to marry William Birdwell and take a teaching job; she moved and enrolled O.K. in Indiana school before a ruling.
Both GAL reports favored the status quo; the GAL expressed concern that Ashley coached O.K. ("Mom says Dad says ***").
Evidence showed O.K. had severe speech deficits that greatly improved with therapy Brian scheduled and supported; O.K. earned straight A's, had no tardies, and was not observed tired at school.
Trial court denied relocation and modified parenting time; this court previously reversed and remanded for factual findings ( In re Marriage of Kreps , 2025 IL App (5th) 250053-U). On remand the court made findings and reached the same result.
Procedural History
Circuit Court of White County, No. 21-D-39 (Judge Thomas J. Dinn III). Two-day bench trial December 2024; January 9, 2025 order denied relocation and modified parenting time; reversed and remanded for findings (2025 IL App (5th) 250053-U); April 29, 2026 order on remand with findings; new parenting plan approved May 6, 2026; timely appeal to the Fifth District.
Holdings
Denial of the relocation petition was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the trial court analyzed each factor under section 609.2(g) and the findings were not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unsupported by the evidence.
Modification of parenting time under section 610.5 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; because relocation was denied and O.K. would primarily live with Brian during the school week, the schedule required modification.
Legal Principles
750 ILCS 5/609.2 (relocation; 609.2(g) best-interest factors; 609.2(d) notice noncompliance relevant to good faith); 750 ILCS 5/600(d) (parental responsibilities); 750 ILCS 5/610.5(a) (parenting time modified on changed circumstances serving best interests). In re Marriage of Fatkin , 2019 IL 123602, ¶ 32, and In re Marriage of Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2d 498 (manifest weight review of relocation). Reynolds v. Reynolds , 2025 IL App (2d) 240028, ¶ 33 (modifying parenting time requires only "changed" circumstances, while modifying the parenting plan requires a "substantial change"). In re Marriage of Virgin , 2021 IL App (3d) 190650, ¶ 45; In re Marriage of Bates , 212 Ill. 2d 489 (evidence viewed in light most favorable to appellee); In re Keyon R. , 2017 IL App (2d) 160657, ¶ 16; Lawlor , 2012 IL 112530, ¶ 70; Vancura , 238 Ill. 2d 352.
Practical Implications
Insist on express factor-by-factor findings; the first appeal succeeded solely because findings were missing, but findings on remand insulated the same result.
Relocation motivated primarily by remarriage, without child-focused proof, invites a finding that the move serves the parent, not the child.
Comparing school districts via how a new spouse's children fare may be dismissed as anecdotal; bring objective data on the receiving school.
Unfounded abuse reports, coaching concerns, withheld parenting time, and unilateral enrollment before a ruling can be weighed under section 609.2(g)(11) and 609.2(d) good faith.
Document structure, routine, therapy involvement, and academic outcomes—this evidence carried the day for the objecting parent.
Distinguishing points: shorter distances, a child old/mature enough for a credited preference, or a parent with a clean good-faith record.
Limitations/Caveats
Rule 23 order—not precedent except under Rule 23(e)(1), and subject to correction before rehearing disposition. The holdings are fact-bound applications of manifest-weight review; the court's recitation of the trial court's factor findings is description, not independent legal rule-making. Note the opinion's reference to the relocation request as a "substantial change in circumstances" while also citing the lesser "changed circumstances" standard for parenting time.
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.