In re Marriage of Demaret, 2012 IL App (1st) 111916

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Demaret, 2012 IL App (1st) 111916 (1st Dist., 6th Div., Jan. 27, 2012).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Elizabeth Demaret (custodial mother). Respondent-Appellee: James Demaret (noncustodial father).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court could hear the appeal while respondent’s pending petition for contribution to attorney fees (filed after the hearing began) remained unresolved.
- Whether the trial court’s denial of the mother’s petition to relocate the children from Illinois to New Jersey was against the manifest weight of the evidence — i.e., whether relocation was in the children’s best interests.

3) Holding/outcome
- Appeal allowed despite the unresolved fee petition.
- Affirmed trial court: denial of mother’s relocation request upheld.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Procedural: The pending fee petition did not divest the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the denial of the relocation petition.
- Merits (best interests): The trial court evaluated the statutory/case-law relocation factors and found the mother failed to prove relocation would materially benefit the children. Key points: mother’s higher salary and reduced travel were insufficiently persuasive as direct benefits to the children; alleged educational advantages (a New Jersey academy for the eldest vs. IMSA, which is boarding) were speculative and not shown to apply to all children; medical care continuity for two children with special needs (three spinal surgeries for one child; cardiac monitoring for another) was not adequately addressed; father’s demonstrated desire and ability to maintain a close relationship weighed against removal; the move carried a realistic risk of marginalizing the father; and the proposed visitation/transportation scheme (hourly flights, offer to pay up to $5,000/year) did not convince the court reasonable and effective parenting time could be preserved. The appellate court found the trial court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Relocation petitions require concrete, child-centered proof of improved quality of life: detailed plans for education, medical care continuity, and specific logistics for preserving meaningful parent–child contact.
- Financial benefits to the custodial parent (higher salary, better benefits) are persuasive only when tied to tangible gains for the children.
- Proffers about visitation (flight schedules, costs, accommodations) should be supported by documentation, cost estimates, and a robust, realistic parenting-time regime that demonstrates preservation of the noncustodial parent’s relationship.
- Address noncustodial parent marginalization directly; present evidence of how contact will be maintained.
- Procedurally, a pending fee petition does not automatically preclude appellate review of a relocation denial — but counsel should be mindful of timing and preservation of issues.