In re Marriage of Bastian, 2023 IL App (3d) 220163-U

In re Marriage of Bastian, 2023 IL App (3d) 220163‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Bastian, 2023 IL App (3d) 220163‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., Aug. 9, 2023). Petitioner‑Appellant: Katie Bastian (mother). Respondent‑Appellee: Richard Bastian (father).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the father’s verified petition to modify parenting time under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(a) and (e)(2) stated a claim (challenged by a 735 ILCS 5/2‑615 motion).
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion or issued a decision against the manifest weight of the evidence when it increased the father’s parenting time (midweek and holiday/winter‑break allocations) in light of the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) and the children’s extracurricular schedules.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not err in denying mother’s motion to dismiss, did not abuse its discretion in modifying parenting time, and the modification was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Pleading sufficiency: The appellate court concluded the father’s petition — which alleged that COVID‑era restrictions and the mother’s scheduling of children’s extracurricular activities during his court‑ordered parenting time prevented him from exercising meaningful midweek time, and that winter‑break allocations were disproportionate — sufficiently alleged a change in circumstances (the court characterized it as “barely” sufficient) to survive a 2‑615 dismissal.
- Standard of review: The appellate court applied the appropriate deference to the trial court’s fact‑finding and best‑interests determinations, reviewing modification rulings for abuse of discretion and factual findings for manifest weight. It found the trial court reasonably credited testimony that (1) the father’s work‑from‑home status made increased midweek time feasible, (2) many extracurricular activities were scheduled during his parenting time and the mother sometimes prevented his participation or make‑up time, and (3) the winter‑break allocation favored the mother.
- Contractual context: The MSA’s provisions about extracurricular activities and the parties’ duty of “good faith flexibility” informed the court’s view that modification could be warranted when one parent’s scheduling effectively deprives the other parent of meaningful time.

5) Practice implications
- Pleading: When seeking modification, plead concrete factual changes (scheduling conflicts, work‑status changes, inability to exercise time) and connect them to the children’s best interests — even narrowly pleaded changes can survive a 2‑615 challenge.
- Evidence: Develop testimony/documentation showing how extracurricular scheduling, pandemic restrictions, or work‑from‑home status affect the practical exercise of parenting time and whether make‑up opportunities were denied.
- MSAs: Courts will consider operative MSA language (mediation clauses, extracurricular and make‑up provisions) and expect parties to attempt negotiated solutions; but if one party’s scheduling effectively nullifies the other’s time, courts may reallocate time.
- Appeal posture: Modification orders receive substantial deference; absent clear abuse of discretion or a decision against the manifest weight of the evidence, modifications are likely to be affirmed.