In re Marriage of Harrell

Overview

The First District affirmed a trial court order granting father temporary relocation of the parties' minor child to Washington State, where mother repeatedly violated court orders prohibiting removal of the child from Illinois, withheld parenting time, and the court found she seriously endangered the child. Mother's appeal failed primarily because she did not provide transcripts of the critical hearings, triggering the Foutch presumption that omitted evidence supports the trial court's decision.

Key Facts

Parties married in 2017; one child, S.H., born January 2023; father filed for dissolution November 2023

Mother made allegations of domestic violence against father, leading to his arrest, removal from the home, and job loss; charges were later dropped and arrest expunged

Parties entered an agreed allocation judgment in August 2024 providing joint decision-making and equal parenting time

Father relocated to Washington State for Navy legal employment after losing his law firm position

Mother repeatedly withheld parenting time; father had not seen the child since August 2025 as of the October 28, 2025 hearing

Court twice ordered mother not to remove the child from Illinois; mother took the child to Ohio days later and attempted to conceal the trip

Mother filed a child support case in California and an emergency motion to relocate to California, after previously denying relocation plans to the court

The GAL and court-appointed therapist recommended temporary custody change to father, citing concerns about mother's mental health and ability to care for the child

Procedural History

Cook County Circuit Court (Judge Robert W. Johnson). Father filed a relocation petition in October 2024 and an emergency motion for turnover in November 2025. After hearings on November 7 and 14, 2025, the court ordered temporary relocation of the child to Washington with father and supervised parenting time for mother. Mother appealed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(5) . The First District, Second Division, affirmed.

Holdings

Affirmed under manifest weight of the evidence standard. Mother failed to provide transcripts of the November 7, 2025 hearing (and the morning session of November 14), so the court presumed the omitted evidence supported the trial court's findings under Foutch v. O'Bryant , 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984).

No due process violation. Mother had notice that temporary relocation would be addressed (the November 10 order explicitly stated the continuance was for that purpose), appeared at both hearings with counsel, and failed to provide transcripts showing she was denied an opportunity to present evidence. This argument was also forfeited for lack of pertinent authority.

The order was a temporary relocation under Section 603.5, not a contempt sanction or permanent relocation under Section 609.2. The court was not required to make explicit written findings on each Section 609.2(g) factor.

Alternate basis: Section 603.10 authorized the order. Upon finding serious endangerment, the court has broad authority to enter any order necessary to protect the child, including temporary relocation.

Mother's challenges to the custody modification and supervised parenting time were forfeited for failure to develop the arguments with pertinent authority.

Legal Principles

750 ILCS 5/603.5 — governs temporary relocation before final allocation judgment; requires best-interests finding and compliance with Section 609.2(c)-(g) protocol

750 ILCS 5/609.2(g) — eleven factors for relocation; court must consider them but is not required to make explicit findings on each factor ( In re Custody of G.L. , 2017 IL App (1st) 163171; In re Marriage of Hefer , 282 Ill. App. 3d 73)

750 ILCS 5/603.10 — serious endangerment provision; grants broad remedial authority including "any other constraints or conditions" necessary for the child's safety; the statutory list is explicitly non-exhaustive

In re Marriage of Fatkin , 2019 IL 123602 — best interests is the paramount consideration; reviewed under manifest weight standard with strong deference to the trial court

Foutch v. O'Bryant , 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984) — absent a complete record, the reviewing court presumes the trial court's order conforms to law and has a sufficient factual basis

Presumption that the circuit court knows and follows the law ( In re Custody of G.L. ; Siegel v. Siegel )

Practical Implications

Always order and file transcripts. This case is a textbook illustration of how failure to provide hearing transcripts is fatal on appeal. Practitioners representing appellants must secure transcripts of every relevant hearing or file a bystander's report under Rule 323(c).

Section 603.10 is a powerful tool. Upon a finding of serious endangerment, trial courts have essentially unlimited remedial authority — practitioners can argue for creative relief including temporary relocation, not just the enumerated remedies.

Distinguish temporary from permanent relocation. Temporary relocation under Section 603.5 does not require the full procedural apparatus of a permanent relocation under Section 609.2, though the same factors apply. Courts need not make written factor-by-factor findings.

Violations of court orders carry severe consequences. A parent who defies explicit court orders — especially those prohibiting removal of a child from the state — risks an emergency change of custody. Document every violation meticulously.

Develop all arguments with authority. Passing references to custody modification and supervised visitation without developed argument and citations result in forfeiture.

Counterargument: This case could be distinguished where a complete record exists showing the trial court failed to consider statutory factors, or where the violation of a court order was truly de minimis and did not endanger the child.

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order — it is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). The outcome was heavily driven by the incomplete appellate record; the court repeatedly emphasized it was presuming in favor of the trial court due to missing transcripts. The discussion of Section 603.10's broad remedial authority (¶¶ 57-59) is presented as an "alternate basis" for affirmance and may be considered dicta given the primary holding rested on the inadequate record. The court's statement that Section 603.10's remedies are non-exhaustive and can include relocation is a notable interpretation but carries limited weight as a Rule 23 order.