In re Marriage of Barsky, 2021 IL App (1st) 210065-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Barsky, 2021 IL App (1st) 210065‑U. Petitioner‑Appellee: Aliza Barsky. Respondent‑Appellant: Robert Barsky. (Order filed Nov. 19, 2021; Rule 23 order; 6th Div.; one justice dissented.)

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court’s grant of petitioner’s relocation petition (to move with the children to France) and severance of joint custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence under 750 ILCS 5/609.2(g) (relocation/best‑interest factors).
2) Whether the trial court erred by ordering respondent to have “no contact of any kind” with the children.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The relocation and associated custody changes were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the “no contact” restriction was permissible because the court applied the serious‑endangerment standard.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The trial court conducted a bench trial, considered testimonial and documentary evidence (including evaluator reports), and found the statutory relocation factors supported the move to France: mother was primary caregiver; children spoke French; France offered superior medical resources and universal healthcare important for one child’s PKU; extensive family and community support in France; educational advantages; and observed emotional improvement in the children after contact with respondent ceased.
- The court relied on evidence of prior physical incidents (including a synagogue incident), fractured co‑parenting, supervised/limited visitation history, evaluator recommendations (Dr. Amabile recommended mother have final decision‑making authority and reunification therapy), and the parents’ inability to co‑parent.
- On the “no contact” order, the appellate court emphasized that the trial court applied the proper serious‑endangerment framework (risk of serious harm to the children) rather than an unsupported categorical prohibition, so the restriction was not an abuse of discretion.
- The court reiterated appellate deference to trial‑court credibility and fact findings; reversal requires manifest‑weight showing.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- When litigating relocation: comprehensively address statutory 609.2(g) factors—primary care role, child health needs, language, schooling, family network, and concrete plans for post‑move parenting time. Documentary evidence and expert reports are critical.
- Medical/special‑needs issues (e.g., PKU) can be dispositive when coupled with concrete treatment/healthcare advantages elsewhere.
- Prior domestic incidents and co‑parenting dysfunction support restrictive orders and severance of joint decision‑making even if DCFS found allegations unsubstantiated—DCFS determinations are not dispositive in custody proceedings.
- For “no contact” or severe restrictions, frame arguments under the serious‑endangerment standard and document risk to children; courts give deference to fact findings on credibility and best interest.
- On appeal, expect deference to trial courts; reversals require clear manifest‑weight error.