In re Marriage of Lazuka, 2021 IL App (1st) 200922-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Lazuka, No. 1-20-0922, 2021 IL App (1st) 200922‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. Jan. 22, 2021) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Nicole Lazuka (n/k/a Nicole Smith). Respondent/Appellant: Patrick McGeady.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a parent seeking to relocate minor children must satisfy the statutory “best interest” relocation inquiry (750 ILCS 5/609.2) when the divorce judgment incorporates a joint parenting order that contractually permits moves within a specified mileage (60 miles).
- Whether the trial court’s grant of relocation was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s order permitting the petitioner to relocate the children to St. John, Indiana, finding the move complied with the joint parenting order (58.6 miles) and rejecting the respondent’s manifest‑weight challenge.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- A joint parenting agreement incorporated into a dissolution judgment is enforceable both as a court order and as a contract (citing 750 ILCS 5/502 and relevant Illinois precedent). The primary objective is to effectuate the parties’ intent as expressed in the agreement.
- The parenting order expressly allowed either parent to move within 60 miles of the other without court leave (only requiring notice if moving more than 60 miles). The petitioner’s St. John residence was 58.6 miles from the respondent’s Naperville home, placing the relocation inside the contractual safe harbor.
- The respondent’s appellate contention amounted to a request to reweigh evidence and credibility (he relied on alleged harms and testimony that the move would disrupt bonding). The appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s factual findings unless against the manifest weight of the evidence; here the record supported the court’s decision.
- Although the trial court nevertheless reviewed section 609.2 factors and found the move in the children’s best interests, the controlling ground was contractual compliance with the incorporated parenting order.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Draft relocation clauses precisely: define distance measure, notice requirements, and mechanics (who measures miles, start/end points). An incorporated clause can foreclose a statutory relocation contest when the move falls inside the agreed zone.
- When planning or opposing relocation, document distances, timing of notices, proposed adjustments to parenting time, travel logistics/cost‑sharing, and evidence of child welfare to avoid a credibility fight.
- Remember Rule 23 status: this decision is unpublished/nonprecedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1), so argue its persuasive value, not binding authority.