In re Marriage of M.J., 2022 IL App (1st) 211620-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of M.J., 2022 IL App (1st) 211620-U (1st Dist. May 16, 2022; modified June 24, 2024).
- Petitioner-Appellee: M.J. (father); Respondent-Appellant: B.Z. (mother). (Names replaced with initials per supervisory order.) Non-precedential Rule 23 order.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion or its decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence in granting the father’s petition to permanently relocate the parties’ two minor children from Chicago to Arizona.
- Application of statutory relocation and child-allocation principles (relocation factors under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act and use of Section 604.10 evaluations).

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court’s relocation order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and affirmed the grant of permanent relocation to Arizona.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: appellate court deferred to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations and reviewed for manifest weight/abuse of discretion.
- The record contained competing expert evaluations: Dr. Amabile (section 604.10 evaluator) recommended denying relocation, emphasizing the children’s close emotional ties to the mother and potential substantial detriment from distance; Dr. Finn (retained evaluator) concluded relocation was in the children’s best interests, noting available schools, employment prospects, and substantial extended-family support in Arizona—particularly important given the older child’s complex medical needs.
- Trial court credited the totality of evidence supporting relocation (employment and housing plans, extended-family medical and caregiving resources, and proposed parenting/visitation arrangements) and found detriments to be mitigable. The court’s choice between conflicting expert opinions and weighing of factors (parental bonds, child’s needs, ability to preserve relationship with nonmoving parent) was within its discretion.

5. Practice implications
- Relocation petitions turn on concrete, documented plans: credible job offers, housing, schooling, and caregiving supports (especially important for children with special medical needs).
- Present compelling evidence showing how the move advances the children’s welfare and how contact with the nonmoving parent will be preserved (detailed parenting-time/holiday/summer plans and travel logistics).
- Expert evaluations matter but are not dispositive—trial courts may credit one expert over another; preserve record on evaluator methodologies and witness credibility.
- Early appointment of a guardian ad litem and retained evaluators (and thorough, contemporaneous documentation of the child’s medical care and parental roles) can be decisive.
- Appellate relief is limited: credibility and fact-intensive relocation rulings receive substantial deference.