In re Marriage of Jordan, 2019 IL App (1st) 191031-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Jordan, 2019 IL App (1st) 191031‑U (1st Dist. Oct. 4, 2019) (Rule 23 order — limited precedential value).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Colleen Jordan (mother). Respondent‑Appellant: Justin Spratt (father).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in allowing the minor children to relocate from Illinois to California under 750 ILCS 5/609.2 where: (a) the mother allegedly did not “exercise” equal parenting time; (b) notice/relocation procedural requirements were contested; and (c) the relocation allegedly was not in the children’s best interests (manifest weight challenge).

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court found no reversible error: the mother was statutorily eligible to seek relocation because she had been allocated equal parenting time in the dissolution judgment; procedural requirements were satisfied; and the trial court’s best‑interests determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory eligibility: Section 609.2(b) allows relocation petitions by a parent “allocated a majority of parenting time or … allocated equal parenting time.” The court focused on allocation in the underlying judgment, not whether the parent actually exercised the time.
- Procedure: The mother initially filed pro se and an earlier petition was dismissed with directions to provide a written parenting proposal and concrete employment details; she later refiled after moving and obtaining employment. The trial court found she provided adequate notice and complied with the court’s prior directions.
- Best interests: The trial court issued a detailed 17‑page order applying the 609.2(g) factors (employment, housing stability, education, family support, parenting ability, child health/medical care, travel/logistics, etc.). It credited the mother’s testimony about better employment/income, housing, educational opportunities, extended family support in California, and concerns about the father’s ability to manage the children’s medical care—concluding benefits outweighed the burdens of distance. Appellate review declined to disturb the credibility findings or the balancing of factors.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Eligibility: Focus on the parenting‑time allocation in the governing judgment — allocation, not mere exercise, controls statutory standing to seek relocation.
- Procedure: If an initial petition is dismissed, follow court directions (written parenting proposal; concrete employment/start date/salary; notice).
- Proof: Present detailed evidence mapped to 609.2(g) (employment, housing, education, health, family support, proposed parenting schedule and travel logistics). Use witnesses and documentary proof for schooling, income, housing, and medical records.
- Record preservation: Introduce rebuttal evidence and secure transcripts of hearings/closing arguments; trial court credibility findings carry strong weight on appeal.
- Appealability: Relocation orders may not be final until incorporated into a modified parenting plan; consider Rule 304(b)(6) timing when appealing.