In re Marriage of Long, 2019 IL App (4th) 190078-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Long, No. 4-19-0078, 2019 IL App (4th) 190078-U (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist. June 20, 2019) (Rule 23 order; not precedent).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Shane Long. Respondent-Appellant: Lisa Long, n/k/a Lisa Draper.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in granting a directed finding in favor of father at the close of mother’s case-in-chief on her motion to modify an agreed joint parenting order.
- Whether respondent proved a change in circumstances and that modification was necessary for the child’s best interests under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(a).

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not err in granting a directed finding and dismissing respondent’s motion to modify the parenting order.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Legal standards: modification requires proof of a change in circumstances and that modification is in the child’s best interests (750 ILCS 5/610.5(a)). A directed finding in a bench trial under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1110 permits the court to weigh credibility and evidence at the close of a party’s case.
- Factual assessment: the original agreed parenting plan expressly contemplated the father’s night‑shift work and anticipated the resulting distribution of overnight vs. awake time. Although mother’s evidence showed she had more total hours with the child, the court found the parties had roughly equal “awake” time and that deviations flowed from exercising the agreement’s right‑of‑first‑refusal during work hours—not from new conditions affecting the child’s welfare.
- The asserted changes (both parties’ remarriages, moves to Pontiac, and schedule deviations) were insufficient, based on the evidence presented, to demonstrate that modification was necessary for the child’s best interests. The trial court’s weighing of witness credibility and evidence supported dismissal at that stage.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- When seeking modification of an agreed parenting plan, plead and prove both (a) a material change in circumstances and (b) specific best‑interest harms tied to that change—general claims of “more time” or parental remarriage are often insufficient.
- Quantify parental time distinctions (awake vs. sleeping hours) and present objective records/witnesses showing impairment to the child’s welfare.
- If relying on right‑of‑first‑refusal disputes, show how its operation now negatively affects the child, not merely parenting logistics.
- Be prepared to survive a directed finding in a bench trial: present credible, concrete evidence addressing statutory best‑interest factors.
- Note: this is an unpublished Rule 23 decision and may not be cited as precedent except in limited circumstances.