In re Marriage of Kimberly R., 2021 IL App (1st) 201405

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Kimberly R., 2021 IL App (1st) 201405. Petitioner-Appellant: Kimberly R.; Respondent‑Appellee: George S. (First District, Third Division; appeal from Cook County; judgment affirmed).

- Key legal issues
Whether the trial court’s denial of the custodial parent’s petition to relocate the parties’ minor child under section 609.2 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/609.2) was against the manifest weight of the evidence; how the statutory best‑interest/relocation factors should be applied where the child has autism and supervised parenting time is at issue.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Kimberly’s motion to relocate to Tennessee with the child.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court applied the manifest‑weight standard of review and deferred to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments. The record contained competing evidence: Kimberly argued relocation would provide superior schooling (Illuminate Academy), family support in Tennessee, and professional training to better serve her autistic son; she also had custody and had been allowed to move her older child. George produced evidence that his parenting time had been curtailed by events culminating in a cancelled supervised visit and concern about his emotional/anger‑management issues. A therapist (Dr. Reid) who supervised visits referred George for psychological evaluation and later recommended anger‑management, individual therapy, parenting education, and supervised re‑introduction with an autism‑specialized therapist. The trial court credited the therapist’s and evaluator’s concerns, found relocation would further impair George’s already limited relationship with the child and disrupt the child’s established therapies/routine, and concluded the relocation was not in the child’s best interests. The appellate court held the trial court reasonably weighed the section 609.2 factors and did not reweigh credibility.

- Practice implications
Relocation motions turn heavily on credibility, documentary proof, and concrete plans for the child’s needs (education, therapies, supports). Attorneys should: (1) develop clear, comparative evidence of superior services and concrete transition plans; (2) rebut claims that the custodial parent impeded parenting time (preserve communications and scheduling evidence); (3) obtain and marshal qualified evaluations addressing each parent’s capacity to meet a special‑needs child’s needs; (4) propose workable, specific parenting‑time arrangements post‑move; and (5) anticipate deference to trial courts on credibility and fact weighing—prepare to establish compelling, documented benefits to the child rather than speculative advantages.