In re Marriage of Mardi L.A., 2023 IL App (4th) 220061-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Mardi L.A., No. 4-22-0061, 2023 IL App (4th) 220061-U (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 7, 2023) (Rule 23 order; nonprecedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Mardi L. A.; Respondent-Appellant: Jamal A. (appeal concerns relocation, allocation of parental responsibilities and parenting time, and postjudgment support/maintenance).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s approval of the children’s relocation to Utah (filed under section 609.2) and its allocation of decision-making responsibilities and parenting time were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the trial court could enter orders on child support and spousal maintenance after expressly reserving those issues at trial.

3) Holding/outcome
- Appellate court affirmed the trial court’s allocations of decision-making authority and parenting time and its finding that relocation to Utah was in the children’s best interests.
- The court vacated the trial court’s orders on child support and maintenance and remanded for further proceedings on those issues.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Manifest-weight review: the appellate court found ample evidentiary support for the trial court’s findings under sections 602.5 (parental decision making) and 602.7 (parenting time). Important factors supporting Mardi included the children’s strong, contemporaneous preference (confirmed via in camera interviews), their adjustment and improved mental-health functioning in Utah, presence of extended family, high parental conflict and inability to cooperate, and practical impossibility of shared decision-making given the distance. Testimony and affidavit evidence about Jamal’s controlling and emotionally abusive behavior supported the best-interest determination.
- Relocation: the court accepted the factual predicate that Mardi left for safety reasons and properly evaluated the statutory best-interest factors rather than mechanically punishing a unilateral move.
- Support/maintenance: trial court had expressly “reserved” those issues at the evidentiary hearing; nevertheless it later entered rulings. Because those matters were not litigated at that hearing (and Jamal had moved for a continuance based on changed income), the appellate court concluded the postreservation rulings were improper and remanded.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- If you intend to reserve financial issues, make a clear record of reservation and schedule a subsequent hearing; trial courts should not enter dispositive financial rulings absent an evidentiary record.
- When relocation involves safety concerns, preserve contemporaneous evidence (police reports, affidavits, witness testimony) and emphasize children’s adjustment and preference; in-camera interviews can be highly persuasive.
- Anticipate that appellate review is deferential (manifest-weight); thorough factual development on best-interest factors (602.5/602.7) and concrete evidence of parental conduct and child adjustment is critical.
- For opposing counsel, focus on undermining adjustment, maturity of child preference, and procedural defects if seeking reversal of relocation/parenting orders.