In Re Marriage of Coulter, 964 N.E.2d 1159

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Coulter, 964 N.E.2d 1159 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Petitioner-Appellee: Melissa Lee Coulter (custodial parent). Respondent-Appellant: Donald R. Coulter (non‑custodial parent).

- Key legal issues
Whether the trial court erred in granting the custodial parent's petition under 750 ILCS 5/609(a) to remove the child from Illinois where removal would materially impair the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights. Application of the Collingbourne best‑interests factors and the standard of review (manifest weight of the evidence).

- Holding/outcome
The Third District affirmed the trial court’s order permitting removal. The appellate court held removal was in the child’s best interests despite substantially reduced in‑person visitation, because reasonable alternative visitation arrangements were feasible and the move materially enhanced the custodial parent’s and child’s quality of life.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
The court applied the Collingbourne factors (quality‑of‑life enhancement; custodial parent’s motive; challenger’s motive; effect on visitation; whether a reasonable visitation schedule remains). It found ample evidence the State Department job significantly improved the family’s economic and social circumstances: higher salary, better health insurance, superior housing, and better local school options (Fairfax County and researched overseas schools). The custodial parent provided a proposed parenting plan addressing visitation (ten weeks summer, limited holiday windows, use of State Department travel assistance for some visits, and technology such as Skype). The court noted the State Department’s family supports (school resources and travel/maintenance allowances for hardship posts) made a reasonable visitation schedule realistic. Given the deferential standard, the appellate court concluded the trial court’s best‑interest determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Practice implications (for litigators)
- For custodial parents seeking removal: develop a comprehensive record showing concrete enhancements to child’s welfare (salary, benefits, housing, schooling, extracurriculars), and present a detailed, realistic visitation plan (including travel funding, State Department/third‑party allowances, and technology). Attach school comparisons and agency policy documents. Demonstrate absence of motive to thwart visitation.
- For noncustodial parents opposing removal: quantify the practical impairment to visitation (costs, feasibility), challenge the realism of proposed visitation logistics, and provide evidence of child’s existing ties and local support network. Argue lack of reasonable alternatives where appropriate.
- Trial courts will be afforded deference; appellate reversal requires showing the best‑interest finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence.