In re Marriage of Edgar, 2019 IL App (4th) 180747-U

In re Marriage of Edgar, 2019 IL App (4th) 180747-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Edgar, No. 4‑18‑0747 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. Mar. 26, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Timothy C. Edgar (father). Respondent‑Appellant: Dayse Brenes Villela, f/k/a Dayse Edgar (mother). Child: M.B., born 2005 (age 13 at hearing).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred (manifest weight) in denying the mother’s petition to relocate out‑of‑state with the minor child.
- Application of the relocation‑best‑interests factors under 750 ILCS 5/609.2(g) and the burden on the relocating parent.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion nor render a decision against the manifest weight of the evidence in denying the mother’s relocation petition.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Standard: The relocating parent bears the burden to prove by a preponderance that relocation is in the child’s best interests; appellate review is deferential (manifest‑weight standard).
- The court applied the statutory 11 relocation factors (750 ILCS 5/609.2(g)) — including reasons for relocation, objections, each parent’s relationship/history with the child, educational and extracurricular opportunities, extended family presence, anticipated impact, child’s wishes, and feasibility of modified parenting arrangements.
- Key factual findings undermining mother’s case: mother had not applied for the Pennsylvania jobs she identified (speculative employment proof); her husband’s immigration status and prior unstable employment were highlighted; father maintained substantial and regular involvement (every‑other‑weekends, holidays, coached teams), owned paid‑off property, and presented a stable home despite temporary plumbing issues which he remedied; mother had previously pursued but obtained only one order of protection; extended family in Illinois (the Deans) provided substantial support and indicated willingness to visit; while the child expressed a preference to move, the court found the totality of evidence did not favor relocation.
- The court reasonably weighed child preference against other best‑interest factors and found relocation would impair the existing parent‑child relationship.

5) Practice implications
- Burden and proof: attorneys for relocating parents must produce concrete, documentary evidence of job offers, housing, schooling, and detailed, practical parenting‑time proposals that minimize impairment to the non‑relocating parent’s relationship with the child.
- Child preference can be influential but is not dispositive; courts balance it with stability, parental involvement, extended‑family support, and feasibility of alternative arrangements.
- Prepare to address allegations affecting parental fitness (orders of protection, confrontations) and to quantify travel/time/cost impacts of long‑distance arrangements.
- Because appellate review is deferential, accurate findings of fact and credibility assessments at trial are critical to success on appeal.