In re Marriage of Ebenezer, 2025 IL App (3d) 240557-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Ebenezer, 2025 IL App (3d) 240557-U (App. Ct., 3d Dist. Apr. 28, 2025) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential).
- Petitioner/Appellant: Christopher Ebenezer. Respondent/Cross‑Appellant: Jennifer Ebenezer.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion or entered findings against the manifest weight of the evidence in denying Jennifer’s request to relocate the parties’ two young children (relocation under the Act).
- Allocation of parenting time (including designation of Indian holidays) and allocation of payments/expenses for the marital home.
- Weight and credibility to be given competing evaluators (GAL, court-appointed evaluator under §604.10(b), and privately retained evaluator under §604.10(c)).

3. Holding/outcome
- The Appellate Court affirmed. The trial court’s rulings on relocation, parenting time, and the allocation of payments/expenses were neither against the manifest weight of the evidence nor an abuse of discretion.

4. Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- The trial court expressly considered statutory best‑interest factors (including parents’ wishes, children’s needs, bonding with each parent, availability of extended family, and the practical effects of distance). It found both parents credible and loving, but concluded Jennifer’s unilateral removal of the children to Wisconsin shortly after service constituted a substantial change in circumstance and raised concerns about timing and manner of the move.
- Critical factual concerns: the roughly 3.5-hour one‑way distance and seasonal (winter) road conditions would unduly burden young children and render previously agreed parenting schedules impractical once school commenced.
- Although the GAL and one evaluator favored relocation (emphasizing Jennifer’s medical needs and family support in Wisconsin), the privately retained evaluator opposed relocation due to the adverse effects of parental distance on the children; the trial court credited the overall record and balanced these views.
- The court’s decisions on parenting time detail (including holiday allocations) and expense division involved discretionary factual determinations supported by the record; appellate review was deferential.

5. Practice implications for family lawyers
- Relocation petitions hinge on both substantive best‑interest factors and the procedural timing/manner of any move—moving children before a hearing is a significant risk to credibility and may persuade a trial court to deny relocation.
- Quantify and document travel burdens (distance, duration, seasonal issues) and practical effects on school/parenting schedules.
- Expert/GAL reports matter but are not outcome‑determinative; reconcile or distinguish competing evaluations at trial.
- Preserve and develop a full factual record on health, third‑party support, and financial disclosures (omitted assets will draw scrutiny).
- Expect highly deferential appellate review: appellate courts will affirm discretionary allocations absent clear abuse or manifestly erroneous findings.