In re Marriage of Burns, 2019 IL App (2d) 180715

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Burns, 2019 IL App (2d) 180715 (2nd Dist. Mar. 7, 2019).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Heather Burns. Respondent-Appellee: August Lifferth.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a trial court may modify provisions of a parenting agreement embodied in a dissolution judgment when it has found no “substantial change in circumstances” under 750 ILCS 5/610.5.
- Whether the trial court may impose non‑minor modifications (scheduling, exchange locations, videoconference rights, pick‑up designees, summer schedule, counseling authority, etc.) based on a guardian ad litem’s recommendations and the parties’ conduct without allowing the custodial parent to present a full case‑in‑chief.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding that August failed to prove a substantial change in circumstances.
- The court vacated the trial court’s modifications to the parenting agreement (those beyond minor administrative changes), concluding the court exceeded its authority and committed procedural error by modifying contested terms after granting a directed finding in part.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Parenting agreements incorporated into judgments are contractural allocations of parental responsibilities; substantive modification ordinarily requires proof of a substantial change affecting the children’s welfare (750 ILCS 5/610.5).
- The trial court properly concluded there was no substantial change (August’s move to Indiana occurred years before the petition and was contemplated at dissolution). Because the required statutory threshold was not met, the court lacked authority to substantively alter the custodial allocation.
- The court’s attempt to justify modifications as measures to curb “petty, vindictive” conduct did not supply the statutory basis to rewrite non‑minor custodial terms.
- Procedural fairness: Heather had moved for a directed finding; after the court granted that motion “in part” (retaining her status as primary parent), it nonetheless adopted and imposed multiple contested changes without allowing Heather to offer evidence in her case‑in‑chief on those disputed modifications — a denial of opportunity to be heard.

5. Practice implications (for family law practitioners)
- Treat parenting agreements as binding judgment terms; absent a statutory substantial‑change showing, trial courts should not make substantive reallocations.
- If seeking modification based on relocation, document timing and foreseeability of the move; moves known or contemplated at dissolution undercut “substantial change.”
- When defending, press for and preserve directed‑finding relief if movant fails to meet statutory standard; ensure the record reflects any objection to the court imposing contested changes after a directed finding.
- Use clear contract clauses: require written, signed amendments; include specific relocation and exchange protocols to reduce litigation.
- Be cautious relying solely on a GAL’s recommendations — GAL reports are persuasive but not a statutory grant to alter custodial allocations without the proper change‑in‑circumstances showing.