In re Marriage of Kenney, 2023 IL App (1st) 221558

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Kenney, 2023 IL App (1st) 221558. Petitioner‑Appellant: John Matthew Kenney Jr.; Respondent‑Appellee: Janet Amber Strang. Appeal from Cook County; judgment affirmed (July 25, 2023).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred by not treating Amber’s petition as a statutory “relocation” matter and applying the correct legal standard.
- Whether the trial court improperly disregarded its earlier jurisdictional finding (that Illinois was the children’s “home state” under the UCCJEA).
- Whether the trial court’s decision granting Amber’s request to relocate the minor children to Colorado was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

3. Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. It concluded the trial court did not err procedurally or legally and that its relocation decision was supported by the record.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Jurisdiction: The trial court correctly applied the UCCJEA. Although the parties split time between Illinois and Colorado and the children did not live continuously in either state for six months immediately before filing, the court reasonably found Illinois had sufficient “home state” contacts based on the parties’ actions (birth and initial medical care in Chicago, leasing an apartment near the birth hospital, ongoing trips for medical appointments, tax filings, passport applications, and representations). The appellate court accepted that factual finding.
- Relocation/best interests: The relocation dispute was ultimately resolved under the trial court’s discretion using best‑interest considerations and extensive factfinding. The court relied on testimony from ten witnesses, reports from a guardian ad litem and court‑ordered/retained evaluators, and documentary evidence (healthcare history, schooling/daycare arrangements, family network, residential history, passports, tax returns, and professional licensure/move plans). Key factors supporting relocation included Amber’s long‑standing domicile and extended family in Colorado, the children’s established pattern of frequent residence and caregiving with Amber in Colorado, Amber’s professional ties, and evidence the children would have substantial support and stability there. The court’s credibility assessments and balancing of competing parental ties were entitled to deference; the appellate court found no abuse of discretion or manifest error.

5. Practice implications
- In multi‑state parenting disputes, document and present clear proof of a child’s “home state” (residency, medical/school records, passports, tax returns, parental admissions).
- UCCJEA jurisdictional issues are fact‑intensive; inconsistent or dual‑state contacts can still support jurisdiction.
- Relocation determinations turn on credibility and best‑interest balancing—GAL and evaluator reports, medical/school records, and evidence of extended family/support are often decisive.
- Preserve procedural objections and ensure expert reports comply with court direction; appellate review is deferential to trial court factfinding.