In re Marriage of Levites, 2021 IL App (2d) 200552

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Levites, 2021 IL App (2d) 200552.
- Petitioner/Counterrespondent: Dmitry Levites (father). Respondent/Counterpetitioner-Appellant: Nuriana Levites (mother).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in assigning the relocating parent (mother) the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation was in the child’s best interests.
- Whether the trial court’s denial of the mother’s amended petition to relocate with the child was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

3. Holding/outcome
- The Second District affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not err in assigning the burden to the relocating parent and that the denial of relocation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

4. Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- Burden of proof: The court accepted the trial court’s allocation of burden to the party seeking relocation — consistent with Illinois relocation jurisprudence and the statutory best‑interest inquiry — requiring the mover to prove by a preponderance that the move is in the child’s best interests.
- Best‑interest analysis and factfinding: The trial court’s weighing of the best‑interest factors (parent–child relationship, ability to maintain parent–child contact, safety concerns, credibility of witnesses, etc.) was entitled to deference. The appellate court emphasized that credibility determinations and assessments of conflicting testimony (including allegations of domestic violence, third‑party aggression, transfers of assets and post‑incident communications) rested with the trial court and were not reversible absent an abuse of discretion.
- Evidence insufficiency: Although there were serious factual allegations (domestic violence, a violent intrusion by a third party, and suspicious financial and post‑incident conduct by father), the appellate court concluded the record did not compel a different outcome; the trial court reasonably found the mother failed to carry the preponderance burden that relocation served the child’s best interests.

5. Practice implications
- When seeking relocation, counsel must recognize and litigate under the prevailing rule that the relocating parent bears the burden to prove relocation is in the child’s best interests.
- Build a robust record on best‑interest factors: concrete plans for preserving the other parent’s relationship (detailed visitation/communication proposals), corroborating evidence for safety claims (police reports, medical records, protection orders), and documentary proof of benefits to the child’s living situation.
- Anticipate appellate deference: preserve credibility and fact‑finding issues for appeal by creating a clear, consistent record; trial court credibility findings are difficult to overcome absent clear contrary evidence.