In re Marriage of D.T.W., 2011 IL App (1st) 111225

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of D.T.W., 2011 IL App (1st) 111225. Petitioner/Appellee: D.T. (father). Respondent/Appellant: S.L. (mother). Appeal from Cook County; 38‑day custody trial; trial court’s 102‑page custody order awarded sole custody to father and granted his petition to remove the children to Florida. Decision: Affirmed.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the Illinois trial court had subject‑matter jurisdiction to enter the custody order.
- Whether the trial court’s custody award was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether petitioner met his burden to prove that relocating the children to Florida was in their best interests.

3. Holding/outcome
The First District affirmed. The appellate court rejected respondent’s jurisdictional challenge, found the trial court’s custody determination not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and agreed that petitioner satisfied the burden to remove the children to Florida.

4. Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Jurisdiction: The court upheld the trial court’s authority to decide custody (the record showed sufficient contacts/home‑state connections supporting Illinois jurisdiction when proceedings were filed).
- Evidentiary basis and credibility: The court gave deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations and extensive fact‑finding after a protracted trial. The record included extensive witness testimony and a court‑appointed forensic psychiatrist (Dr. Phyllis Amabile, appointed under §604(b)) whose multi‑session evaluation, observations, collateral interviews, and written reports supported the trial court’s findings. Amabile testified to strengths and vulnerabilities of both parents, the strong sibling bond, and that the children would be well cared for if placed with father given his support network.
- Best interests/removal: The trial court’s removal decision rested on the children’s welfare, the father’s parenting capacity and plan (including demonstrated scheduling/routine and available caregivers), and evidence that the mother had interfered with visitation and fostered instability. The appellate court concluded the trial court reasonably found removal would serve the children’s best interests.

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Build a thorough factual record: prolonged testimony, contemporaneous documents, and corroborating witnesses are critical where custody and removal are contested.
- Use/prepare for §604(b) evaluations: court‑appointed forensic/expert reports carry substantial persuasive weight; prepare witnesses and documents the evaluator will review.
- Document interference: keep detailed evidence of any parental interference with visitation; courts factor this heavily in custody and removal analyses.
- Removal strategy: present a concrete post‑move parenting plan, support network, schooling, and evidence showing move benefits the children.
- Appellate posture: appellate courts defer to trial credibility and best‑interest findings; focus on preserving objections and a complete trial record for appeal.