In re Marriage of Belt

Overview

The Fifth District affirmed the circuit court's allocation of majority parenting time to Mother but reversed the court's grant of Mother's petition to relocate with the child from the Metro East area of Illinois to Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. The court found the relocation decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the circuit court failed to adequately weigh the parties' limited financial resources, their inability to cooperate, Mother's pattern of undermining Father's relationship with the child, and the child's acute need for stability given her history as a foster/adopted child diagnosed with adjustment disorder.

Key Facts

The parties adopted Jaiden (born 2018) from foster care in August 2023; their marriage involved a polyamorous relationship with a third partner, Eli, who served as a co-parent but had no legal parental standing.

Mother was Jaiden's primary caregiver, handling homeschooling, medical appointments, and daily care; Father participated but to a disputed degree.

The GAL found Mother was not fostering Father's relationship with Jaiden—Father could not contact Jaiden during Mother's time, his contact info was excluded from Jaiden's devices, and Jaiden reported Mother said "Daddy is a bad person."

Mother sought relocation to Pennsylvania to be near her biological parents (with whom she reconnected only in March 2023), citing long COVID limitations and a job offer from her father.

Mother had not worked or applied for jobs in Illinois since 2023; her father's financial support of $2,000–$4,000/month was acknowledged as unsustainable long-term.

The drive between locations required approximately 13+ hours (two days of travel); airfare was likely cost-prohibitive given both parties' limited resources.

Jaiden was diagnosed with adjustment disorder , ADHD, anxiety, and eczema; she had experienced disruption in prior foster placements.

The GAL recommended denying relocation , citing transportation concerns, Mother's unwillingness to cooperate, and risk to Father-child relationship.

Procedural History

Father filed for dissolution in St. Clair County Circuit Court (No. 23-DC-296) in September 2023. A GAL was appointed. After a three-day hearing in July–August 2025, the circuit court entered a judgment of dissolution on September 17, 2025, granting Mother sole decision-making on education and health, majority parenting time, and permission to relocate. Father's motion to reconsider was largely denied. Father appealed to the Fifth District under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a) (accelerated child custody appeal). The decision was issued beyond the 150-day deadline for good cause.

Holdings

Parenting time allocation affirmed. Under manifest weight of the evidence standard, the court found ample support for awarding Mother majority parenting time, given her role as primary caregiver, the child's greater comfort with Mother, and the circuit court's superior position to assess credibility. Father's argument regarding Mother's failure to foster his relationship was acknowledged but found insufficient to overcome the totality of factors.

Decision-making allocation affirmed. Father's challenge was deemed forfeited for raising it only in a conclusory sentence without developed argument, per Rule 341(h)(7).

Relocation reversed. The circuit court's grant of Mother's petition to relocate was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court failed to adequately consider: (a) the untested nature of Mother's relationship with her biological parents; (b) the realistic infeasibility of long-distance parenting given limited resources; (c) Mother's demonstrated unwillingness to foster Father's relationship; (d) Jaiden's heightened need for stability as a foster-adopted child with adjustment disorder; and (e) the difference between a local move and an interstate relocation.

Parenting schedule vacated and remanded with directions to fashion a schedule appropriate for parents living in the same local vicinity.

Legal Principles

750 ILCS 5/602.7(b) — Best-interest factors for parenting time allocation; court must consider "all relevant factors" but need not make explicit findings on each. In re G.L. , 2017 IL App (1st) 163171.

750 ILCS 5/609.2(g) — Eleven statutory factors for relocation; relocating parent bears burden of proof by preponderance. In re Marriage of Kavchak , 2018 IL App (2d) 170853.

750 ILCS 5/602.5(c) — Decision-making allocation factors, including ability to cooperate (factor 4).

Standard of review: Manifest weight of the evidence for both parenting time and relocation decisions. In re Marriage of Fatkin , 2019 IL 123602; Kavchak .

A reasonable parenting schedule post-relocation must "preserve and foster" the noncustodial parent's relationship. In re Marriage of Gibbs , 268 Ill. App. 3d 962.

Children have "an interest in maintaining significant contact with both parents." In re Marriage of Krivi , 283 Ill. App. 3d 772 (emphasis in original).

Relocation analysis is case-by-case and "cannot be reduced to a simple tally" of factors. In re Marriage of Levites , 2021 IL App (2d) 200552.

Practical Implications

Relocation opponents should emphasize feasibility: Document the realistic costs and logistics of long-distance parenting time, including airfare, drive times, and the parties' actual financial resources—not just theoretical schedules.

Pattern of alienating behavior is powerful evidence against relocation: Concrete examples (blocking phone contact, excluding contact info from devices, disparaging remarks reported by the child) proved decisive here.

Stability arguments carry extra weight for foster/adopted children: Practitioners representing children with trauma histories should highlight diagnoses like adjustment disorder and the child's particular vulnerability to disruption.

Untested support networks can be challenged: A relocating parent's reliance on a recently rekindled family relationship may be scrutinized for durability and reliability.

Failure to seek local employment undermines relocation claims: A parent claiming economic necessity for relocation should demonstrate they exhausted local options first.

Develop all appellate arguments fully: Father's decision-making challenge was forfeited for raising it in a single conclusory sentence—a cautionary example under Rule 341(h)(7).

GAL recommendations matter but aren't dispositive: The circuit court departed from the GAL's recommendation against relocation, and the appellate court ultimately agreed with the GAL.

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order , meaning it is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). The court's detailed analysis of relocation factors—particularly its emphasis on the untested nature of a biological parent relationship, the realistic feasibility of travel, and heightened stability concerns for adopted children—constitutes persuasive but non-binding guidance. The affirmance of parenting time and decision-making allocations rested heavily on deference to the circuit court's credibility determinations. The case's unusual polyamorous family structure and foster-to-adoption facts may limit its applicability to more conventional relocation disputes.