In re Marriage of Eckburg, 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Eckburg, 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U (2d Dist. Dec. 18, 2024). Petitioner-Appellant: Alisha Eckburg. Respondent-Appellee: Joshua Eckburg.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or reached a decision against the manifest weight of the evidence in denying Alisha’s petition for permanent relocation of the children to Idaho (750 ILCS 5/609.2).
2. Whether the court and the guardian ad litem (GAL) failed to ascertain or consider the children’s wishes.
3. Whether the court erred by not crediting Alisha’s claimed motives (escape from abusive conduct, improved schooling/employment, financial stability) as weighing in favor of relocation.
4. Procedural due-process/notice concerns arising from an earlier temporary-relocation order and whether that order improperly curtailed Joshua’s parenting time/decision-making rights.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court’s denial of the permanent-relocation petition was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
The court reviewed the relocation request under the governing statutory/best-interest framework and gave deference to the trial court’s credibility and fact-findings. The appellate panel found the trial court adequately considered the evidence (including reports and the GAL’s involvement) and did not err in its credibility assessments. The court rejected Alisha’s contentions that the GAL and trial court failed to ascertain the children’s wishes or that the trial court ignored Jacob’s alleged unhealthy behavior and lack of involvement. The record did not compel a finding that relocation was in the children’s best interests; the trial court permissibly weighed Alisha’s proffered motives (job, schooling, partner, desire to leave Illinois) and found they did not outweigh countervailing concerns. Procedurally, the court addressed Joshua’s challenges to notice and vacatur of the earlier temporary order (the court had later vacated aspects of that order and restored parenting-time issues for further consideration), and the appellate court found no reversible procedural error.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Build a robust, fact-specific record on: children’s expressed preferences, concrete educational/employment benefits, housing and overnight-sleeping arrangements, and credible evidence of any safety concerns or abuse (medical, police, third‑party witnesses).
- Distinguish emergency/temporary relocation relief from permanent relocation — temporary relief may be granted but is not determinative of permanent relief.
- Use the GAL process strategically and ensure the GAL’s findings and interviews are in the record.
- Preserve and prove proper service/notice; anticipate and rebut claims of lack of notice or strategic non‑participation.
- Expect appellate deference to trial credibility findings; focus on documentary and witness evidence that materially shifts the best‑interests balance.
- Note: this opinion is a Rule 23(b) order and non‑precedential except in limited circumstances.