In Re Marriage of Demaret, 964 N.E.2d 756

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Demaret, 964 N.E.2d 756 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Petitioner-Appellant: Elizabeth Demaret. Respondent-Appellee: James Demaret.

- Key legal issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the custodial parent's petition to relocate the children from Illinois to New Jersey; what factors govern the removal analysis; whether the denial was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Holding / outcome
The Appellate Court (1st Dist., 6th Div.) affirmed. The trial court’s denial of Elizabeth’s petition to move the children was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and therefore was not contrary to the children’s best interests.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The trial court conducted the required best‑interests analysis for removal and found the factors did not support the move. The record showed competing considerations: Elizabeth had a lucrative job offer in New Jersey, reduced travel, better benefits, and East Coast family support; she offered to subsidize up to $5,000/year for visitation and proposed a revised visitation scheme. Against that, the court emphasized substantial countervailing factors: the children’s established school placements and extracurriculars in Illinois (three in magnet/gifted programs), important ongoing medical care in Chicago for two children (including multiple spinal surgeries and cardiac monitoring), James’s active involvement and parenting time (including attendance at surgeries), the practical burden on James’s existing visitation (travel time/costs and loss of midweek contact), and the children being “firmly cemented” in Illinois as urged by the children’s representative. The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility and fact findings and applied the manifest‑weight standard, concluding there was adequate evidence to support denial.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Relocation petitions must present concrete, child‑centered benefits (educational, medical continuity, stability) and detailed transition plans; generalized career benefits are insufficient alone.
- Address and document how medical and specialized school needs will be maintained post‑move.
- Provide specific, feasible visitation arrangements (schedules, travel logistics, costs, and willingness to subsidize) and show minimal disruption to the non‑moving parent’s relationship.
- Expect trial courts to weigh children’s current attachments and school stability heavily; prepare testimony from educators/medical providers when relevant.
- Anticipate deference on appeal (manifest‑weight review); preserve record on credibility, feasibility of proposed arrangements, and detailed comparisons of educational/medical opportunities.

Word count: ~370.