Kaesberg v. Kaesberg

Overview

In a post-dissolution dispute over the allocation of educational decision-making, the Fifth District affirmed the circuit court's determination that the parties' five-year-old daughter should attend Red Bud Public Schools so long as the father resides in that district. The court held the trial court's best-interest findings under section 602.5(c) of the Marriage Act were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Key Facts

Parties married 2017; marital residence in Waterloo, Illinois, located between mother's job in Creve Coeur, Missouri, and father's chiropractic practice in Marissa, Illinois; child born September 2020.

Father filed for dissolution April 2025, moved to an apartment in Red Bud in July 2025, and bought a home there in February 2026; mother remained in the Waterloo marital home.

December 23, 2025 marital settlement agreement and agreed parenting plan resolved all issues except school choice (Waterloo or Red Bud) and left open modification of a 24-hour right of first refusal without requiring a substantial change in circumstances.

Child attended Discovery Youth daycare in Red Bud from nine weeks old, later Child's World pre-kindergarten in Waterloo; during the divorce, father enrolled her in Discovery Youth pre-kindergarten, and a temporary order allowed each parent to choose a pre-K on their parenting days.

Evidence showed the child was academically advanced; "school report cards" were admitted, with proficiency/readiness metrics favoring Waterloo, and graduation rate and class size favoring Red Bud.

Father offered, and was ordered, to provide transportation to and from school on days mother works in the office if timely requested by 7 p.m. the night before.

Trial court found the child well adjusted in both towns, found no final parental agreement on kindergarten, found both districts could provide a challenging education, and considered community ties under the catch-all factor.

Procedural History

Circuit Court of Monroe County (No. 25-DC-13, Judge Jennifer Becker-Roscow) entered a judgment of dissolution and agreed allocation judgment, then held a two-day bench trial in mid-April 2026 on education and the right of first refusal. The court ordered enrollment in Red Bud Public Schools and declined to modify the right of first refusal. The mother appealed only the school-district portion to the Appellate Court, Fifth District.

Holdings

Applying the manifest weight of the evidence standard, the trial court's findings on best-interest factors two, six, eight, nine, and fifteen, and its selection of Red Bud Public Schools, were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; affirmed.

In re Marriage of Katsap bars a court from being bound by one party's unilateral action, but does not prohibit the court from considering that unilateral action; nothing showed the trial court felt bound.

A temporary order is provisional and creates no res judicata ( In re Marriage of Fields ), but nothing suggested the trial court believed otherwise when ruling on the merits.

Community-ties evidence may be weighed under the catch-all factor where the findings bear on facts affecting the child (teachers known, continuity of activities, available support).

Legal Principles

Section 5/602.5 of the Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/602.5 (West 2024)), including the 15 best-interest factors in § 602.5(c) and restriction analysis under § 603.10. In re Marriage of McLean , 2025 IL App 5th 250094, ¶¶ 72-73 (manifest weight standard; no explicit findings required on each factor; strong and compelling presumption favoring the trial court). Jameson v. Williams , 2020 IL App 3d 200048, ¶ 51 (reviewing court does not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility). In re Marriage of Katsap , 2022 IL App (2d) 210706, ¶¶ 125-27. In re Marriage of Fields , 283 Ill. App. 3d 894, 901-02 (1996).

Practical Implications

Objective "school report card" metrics are not dispositive; personal testimony about a district, continuity of care, and support networks can outweigh proficiency statistics.

Build a record of live witnesses familiar with the preferred district — the absence of personal testimony about Waterloo mattered here.

Offering to shoulder transportation burdens is a powerful litigation tool; courts can embed a transportation obligation into the order to neutralize factor nine.

Speculative employment harm (no discipline, no imminent job loss) carries little weight.

Counter-argument: Katsap and Fields remain available where the record shows the court treated a unilateral act or temporary order as binding or as the controlling status quo.

Reserving school choice for later determination in a settlement agreement invites a full best-interest trial; consider defining the status quo expressly in the agreement.

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order and is not precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1). The binding disposition is the affirmance on manifest-weight grounds; the discussion distinguishing Katsap (consideration versus being bound) and the observations about res judicata under Fields are persuasive guidance tied to the absence of any contrary indication in this record.