In re Marriage of Coulter, 2012 IL 113474

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Coulter, 2012 IL 113474 (Ill. Sept. 20, 2012). Appellee: Robert Lee Coulter (father). Appellant: Amy Eleanor Trinidad (mother).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether a joint parenting agreement (JPA) incorporated into the dissolution judgment constituted the "leave of court" required by 750 ILCS 5/609(a) to permit an out-of-state removal.
2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the father's request for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the mother's removal.
3) The interplay between enforcement of JPAs incorporated into judgments and a later custody modification claim based on changed circumstances.

- Holding/outcome
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. The Court held that the JPA, incorporated into the dissolution judgment, granted the mother leave to relocate to Southern California after the agreed time and notice conditions were met. The father, however, retained the right to pursue a custody modification; his petition remained pending and he must satisfy the statutory burden for modification.

- Significant legal reasoning
• Statutory framework: §609(a) permits the court to grant leave to remove a child "before or after judgment." §502 allows incorporation of party agreements into a judgment; incorporated terms are enforceable as court orders and contract terms.
• Interpretation: The JPA expressly barred removal for 24 months, required notice, provided a mediation/discussion window for the following 12 months, and, if no agreement was reached, allowed the mother to remove the children to Southern California while leaving the court to set a visitation schedule. The mother complied with the JPA’s conditions (timing and notice).
• Relief: A preliminary injunction was inappropriate because the mother already had judicial leave via the incorporated JPA. The appellate court erred by treating the JPA as not constituting leave of court and by granting injunctive relief to “preserve the status quo.”
• Custody modification: The father’s pending claim for modification (changed circumstances and best interests) was not resolved by this ruling; he must meet the statutory burden to obtain modification.

- Practice implications
• Draft relocation clauses carefully and expressly state whether they operate as "leave of court" if intended to eliminate future §609 proceedings.
• When a JPA is incorporated into a judgment, its removal terms are enforceable as a judgment (contempt and other remedies).
• Timely respond to relocation notices and participate in any agreed mediation/discussion windows to avoid waiver.
• To prevent relocation, litigants should be prepared to pursue custody-modification proofs (substantial change + best interests); preliminary injunctions are extraordinary and unlikely where an incorporated agreement grants leave.