In re Marriage of Wong

Overview

In re Marriage of Wong, 2026 IL App (3d) 250661-U, affirms the trial court's order granting the mother's petition to relocate two children (ages 10 and 14) from Illinois to Colorado and modifying the parenting time schedule. The Third District held the trial court's findings under Section 609.2 were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, emphasizing the father's unauthorized move of the children 25+ miles from Naperville undermined his opposition to relocation.

Key Facts

• Parties divorced in 2018 with 50/50 parenting time; both resided in Naperville, Illinois.
• A 2022 Agreed Order allowed the mother to move to Colorado while children remained in Illinois with continued 50/50 time; it shifted the burden to the father to show relocation to Colorado would not be in the children's best interests.
• Mother's employer (Wells Fargo) changed her position in November 2024, requiring in-person work three days/week in Colorado or western states, making the prior schedule unworkable.
• Father married Ashley Wong (August 2024), then surreptitiously moved the children from Naperville to Tower Lakes and then Hawthorn Woods—over 25 miles away—without notice to mother, without court approval, and in violation of Section 609.2 and the 2022 Agreed Order. This resulted in commutes of up to 2–3 hours/day for one child.
• The GAL initially recommended against relocation but changed his recommendation during trial after hearing testimony and re-interviewing the children, ultimately recommending G.W. relocate to Colorado and N.W. remain in Illinois. The trial court relocated both children.
• The GAL testified the father prioritized his new family's convenience over the children's interests and would not foster the mother's relationship with the children if they stayed in Illinois.

Procedural History

Du Page County Circuit Court (18th Judicial Circuit), Case No. 17-D-2151, Judge Leah D. Setzen presiding. Mother filed a verified petition for relocation in April 2024. Father filed a counter-petition to modify. Six-day trial held September–October 2025. Trial court granted relocation of both children to Colorado and modified parenting time on November 4, 2025. Father appealed to the Third District Appellate Court.

Holdings

1. Relocation affirmed. Under the manifest weight of the evidence standard (In re Marriage of Fatkin, 2019 IL 123602), the trial court's grant of relocation was not clearly erroneous. The court properly weighed all eleven Section 609.2(g) factors.
2. Parenting time schedule affirmed. The modified schedule—giving father first and third weekends monthly, holiday weekends, school breaks, and most of summer—was supported by the record and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
3. GAL's revised report properly considered. Father's challenge to the GAL's mid-trial change in recommendation was forfeited under the invited error doctrine because father's counsel requested the GAL re-interview the children. Even absent forfeiture, no prejudice was shown; In re Marriage of Gualandi and Mau-Gualandi, 2024 IL App (5th) 240238, was distinguished.
4. Briefing deficiencies noted but not fatal. Father's violations of Rules 341(h)(6), (7), and (9) were admonished but did not result in forfeiture or dismissal.

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 5/609.2(g): Eleven-factor test for contested relocation; court cannot use a simple "tally" approach (In re Marriage of Levites, 2021 IL App (2d) 200552, ¶ 71).
• 750 ILCS 5/602.7: Seventeen-factor best-interests test for parenting time; explicit findings on each factor not required (In re Custody of G.L., 2017 IL App (1st) 163171, ¶ 43).
• Standard of review: Manifest weight of the evidence for both relocation and parenting time; opposite conclusion must be "clearly evident" (Fatkin; In re V.S., 2025 IL 129755, ¶ 52).
• Invited error doctrine: A party cannot request a procedure at trial and then challenge it on appeal (People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 385).
• Unauthorized relocation in violation of Section 609.2 weighs heavily against the moving parent under the statutory factors.
• A parent's preemptive relocation years earlier does not automatically bar a later relocation petition where the court finds relocation serves the children's best interests; distinguished In re Marriage of Prusak, 2020 IL App (3d) 190688.

Practical Implications

• Unauthorized moves are devastating to a parent's case. The father's surreptitious relocation of the children—even within the same state—was the pivotal fact. Practitioners should counsel clients that any move violating Section 609.2 or an agreed order will be used against them on every statutory factor.
• Agreed orders shifting burdens of proof are enforceable. The 2022 Agreed Order placed the burden on the father to show relocation to Colorado was not in the children's best interests—practitioners can negotiate similar provisions strategically.
• GAL testimony is dynamic. GALs may change recommendations mid-trial based on new testimony. Counsel should be cautious about inviting further GAL investigation unless confident it will help—the invited error doctrine will foreclose appellate challenges.
• Fostering the other parent's relationship matters. The court credited the GAL's testimony that the mother would foster the father's relationship but not vice versa—this factor can tip close cases.
• Comply with Supreme Court Rules on appeal. The court admonished counsel for deficient briefing under Rules 341 and 342; while not fatal here, such deficiencies risk forfeiture or dismissal in other panels.
• Counterargument: A parent opposing relocation could distinguish this case by showing they complied with all court orders and remained in the agreed-upon community, negating the credibility damage the father suffered here.

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order—it is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). It may be cited for persuasive value only. The court's extensive discussion of the father's unauthorized move and the GAL's evolving recommendations are fact-specific applications of settled law rather than new legal principles. The distinction drawn with Mau-Gualandi (GAL's changed recommendation is not per se error) and Prusak (preemptive relocation) is persuasive dicta useful for analogous fact patterns but not binding.