In re Marriage of Erickson, 2023 IL App (3d) 230269-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Erickson, 2023 IL App (3d) 230269‑U (Order filed Oct. 16, 2023) (Sup. Ct. R. 23 non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Darlena Gomez (n/k/a Darlena Erickson). Respondent‑Appellee: Cody Erickson. Appeal from Kankakee County (21st Judicial Circuit), Circuit No. 16‑D‑194.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion or made a decision against the manifest weight of the evidence in denying petitioner’s request for leave to relocate the children ~75 miles (Bourbonnais → St. Charles).
- Whether the trial court properly applied the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act’s relocation/best‑interest factors (750 ILCS 5/609.2(g))—i.e., whether it evaluated those factors in the context of the children’s best interests rather than attempting to preserve the preexisting equal parenting time arrangement.

3) Holding/outcome
- Appellate court vacated and remanded. It held the trial court failed to consider the statutory factors within the proper paradigm (the children’s best interests) and therefore the relocation decision must be reconsidered in light of those factors using the existing evidentiary record.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The parties had an original allocation providing joint decisionmaking and equal parenting time; petitioner sought leave to relocate and educational‑primary residency designation; petitioner moved and children continued attending private school, producing lengthy commutes.
- The trial court issued a seven‑page memorandum analyzing the 11 statutory factors but did so with a presumption toward keeping the existing equal parenting schedule. The appellate court found that focus improper because the geographic move made the status‑quo schedule infeasible and the central inquiry must be the children’s best interests, not preservation of equal time.
- The court misapplied statutory language—evaluating feasibility of keeping equal time rather than whether a “reasonable allocation of parental responsibilities” (609.2(g)(7)) best served the children—so the analysis was arbitrary and legally deficient.
- Appellate court reiterated applicable standards: relocation decisions are inherently best‑interest inquiries reviewed for manifest weight of the evidence; trial court findings are afforded deference but must employ correct statutory standard.

5) Practice implications
- Trial courts must analyze relocation requests by applying the 609.2(g) factors expressly and in the context of the child’s best interests; avoiding a reflexive effort to preserve the pre‑move parenting time.
- When relocation makes prior schedules impracticable, courts should shift focus to crafting a reasonable allocation that minimizes impairment to parent‑child relationships rather than insisting on equal time.
- Record the court’s specific best‑interest analysis tied to each statutory factor; failure to do so risks reversal/remand even where evidence supports a change of custody or schedule.
- Practitioners should develop the record on alternative parenting schedules, educational impacts, extended family supports, and reasonable allocation proposals in relocation cases.