In re Marriage of Allaman, 2021 IL App (3d) 210059-U

In re Marriage of Allaman, 2021 IL App (3d) 210059-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Allaman, 2021 IL App (3d) 210059-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., June 15, 2021) (Rule 23 order — not precedent).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Carlton R. Allaman. Respondent-Appellant: Crystal A. Allaman (now Dougherty).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a custodial parent’s petition to relocate the parties’ two minor children from Illinois to Tennessee under 750 ILCS 5/609.2, i.e., whether the proposed relocation was in the children’s best interests.
- Evidence sufficiency, credibility determinations, and whether the proposed parenting plan preserved the nonmoving parent’s relationship with the children.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Crystal’s petition to relocate. The court held the trial court did not err in finding the relocation was not in the children’s best interests.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The appellate court applied the familiar abuse-of-discretion standard: trial court credibility and fact findings are entitled to deference.
- The trial court (and appellate court) evaluated the totality of circumstances bearing on best interests: children’s relationships with each parent, proposed parenting schedule and its effect on nonmoving parent’s contact, stability and school/childcare arrangements, parental motives, and credibility of evidence supporting relocation (jobs, housing, schooling, childcare).
- The record undermined the relocating parent’s proof: job offers and housing evidence were thin or speculative (Zillow listings, tentative offers, withdrawn positions), school/childcare representations were incomplete, and Crystal made inaccurate assertions (e.g., about free community college). The proposed parenting plan restructured time into larger blocks that would materially reduce the father’s in-person contact.
- Adverse credibility evidence about Crystal’s new husband (history of license suspension, arrests, prior protections, rehab, child-support issues) and inconsistencies in discovery further weakened her case.
- The court emphasized that remote communication (FaceTime) could not substitute for regular in-person parental involvement and the relocation would significantly impair Carlton’s meaningful relationship with the children.

5) Practice implications
- Relocating parents must present concrete, verifiable evidence of employment, housing, schooling, childcare, and demonstrated benefits to the children—not speculative internet listings or tentative offers.
- Disclose and document new partner’s background; adverse facts can undermine relocation credibility.
- Propose a parenting plan that preserves substantial in-person contact for the nonmoving parent (detailed travel logistics, holidays, summer schedules, right of first refusal, cost allocation).
- Expect courts to weigh the nonmoving parent’s existing involvement heavily; maintain documentation of parental involvement (school contacts, extracurriculars, medical care).
- On appeal, courts defer to trial credibility findings; preserve record on disputed facts and credibility for meaningful appellate review.