In re Marriage of Coulter, 2012 IL App (3d) 100973

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Coulter, 2012 IL App (3d) 100973 (3d Dist. Jan. 13, 2012). Petitioner-Appellee: Melissa Lee Coulter; Respondent-Appellant: Donald R. Coulter.

- Key legal issues
Whether the trial court erred in granting a custodial parent's petition under 750 ILCS 5/609(a) to remove the child from Illinois when the move (foreign‑service employment and temporary Virginia posting) would significantly impair the noncustodial parent’s visitation.

- Holding / outcome
Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion: removal was in the child’s best interests despite substantial impact on visitation because the move materially enhanced the custodial parent’s and child’s quality of life and a reasonable visitation plan (including technological contact and State Department travel/maintenance assistance) could be fashioned.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
The court applied the statutory removal framework and Illinois precedent (standard of review: will not disturb best‑interest finding absent manifest weight of the evidence; see In re Marriage of Eckert and Collingbourne factors). Key findings supporting removal included: (1) substantial enhancement of economic, social, educational and cultural opportunities given petitioner’s foreign service position, higher income, better health insurance, and access to higher‑rated schools (both Fairfax County and American overseas schools supported by State Dept.); (2) petitioner’s legitimate non‑vindictive motive—career advancement and attendant benefits for the child; (3) proposed parenting plan addressing visitation logistics (10 contiguous weeks in summer with State Dept. transportation support, alternate holiday blocks, chaperoned travel provisions) and commitment to provide the child a computer/internet to maintain regular webcam, email and telephone contact; (4) State Department programs (schooling subsidies, maintenance allowances and potential travel assistance) that mitigate disruption and permit a realistic visitation schedule even with overseas posts. The court concluded that reduced physical visitation alone was not dispositive where alternatives preserved a close parent‑child relationship.

- Practice implications for family attorneys
When litigating removal under 750 ILCS 5/609(a):
- Build a record showing concrete enhancement to the child’s and custodial parent’s quality of life (income, benefits, school quality, extracurriculars).
- Address potential hardship posts and present institutional supports (employer travel/school allowances, guardian plans).
- Propose a detailed, realistic parenting plan (blocks of time, travel logistics, who pays, chaperones) and communication protocols (webcam/email/phone).
- Anticipate and rebut claims of vindictive motive.
- Emphasize that courts balance visitation impairment against overall best interests; demonstrate reasonable alternatives to preserve parent‑child relationship.