In re Marriage of Barnett, 2023 IL App (2d) 220284-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Barnett, 2023 IL App (2d) 220284-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Jan. 3, 2023) (Rule 23(b) order — non‑precedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1)).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Daniel Barnett. Respondent-Appellant: Amber Barnett. Minor: B.B.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in (a) denying father's request for sole parental decision‑making authority, and (b) modifying parenting time and naming father the primary residential custodial parent for school‑district purposes.
- Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances and whether modification was in the child’s best interests.
- Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying a continuance after respondent substituted counsel.

3. Holding / outcome
- Appellate Court affirmed. The trial court did not err in denying the motion for sole decision‑making authority, and it properly granted modification of parenting time and designated father as the primary residential custodian for school purposes.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The GAL (appointed under the Act) investigated and recommended that the child attend school in the father’s Lake Zurich district; the GAL’s investigation focused on mother’s frequent moves, cohabitation history, and conflicting statements about appropriate school district. The GAL acknowledged limits (could not reach teacher; time constraints) but considered statutory best‑interest factors.
- Evidence showed multiple relocations by mother (four residences in 36 months), periods living with different men, a move requiring a 40‑minute school commute and reported tardiness, and mother’s inconsistent positions about which district the child should attend. The court found these facts supported a substantial change bearing on the child’s stability and schooling.
- The court declined to award sole decision‑making to father — indicating the higher threshold to remove shared legal decision‑making — but found modification of primary residential status for school purposes and parenting time adjustment appropriate under the best‑interest standard.
- The trial court did not abuse discretion by denying a continuance after substitution of counsel where the matter was time‑sensitive (school enrollment) and the court/GAL schedules limited further delay.

5. Practice implications
- Courts will carefully distinguish between (a) changing parental decision‑making (high bar) and (b) altering primary residential designation for school purposes and parenting time (more readily modified when child stability/school continuity is implicated).
- Repeated moves, inconsistent parental positions about school enrollment, and demonstrated effects on attendance/commuting can support modification focused on schooling stability.
- Appointment and findings of a GAL carry persuasive weight even if investigation is limited; lack of teacher input may be noted but will not necessarily defeat modification.
- Substitution of counsel is not an automatic ground for continuance where time‑sensitive child‑centered issues (e.g., imminent school year) exist.
- Reminder: this is a Rule 23(b) order — limited precedential value; cite accordingly.