In re Marriage of Miller, 2021 IL App (1st) 200786-U

In re Marriage of Miller, 2021 IL App (1st) 200786‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Miller, No. 1‑20‑0786 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Feb. 11, 2021) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: David Miller. Respondent‑Appellee: Kristian Miller. Subject child: A.M.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to modify parenting time by finding no “substantial change in circumstances” under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(c).
- Procedural points: sufficiency of the appellate record and compliance with Supreme Court briefing rules.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The circuit court’s denial of David’s motion to increase parenting time was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellate court declined to strike appellant’s brief despite rule violations and found the record sufficiently supplemented to reach the merits.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory framework: A two‑step inquiry under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(c): (1) movant must prove by a preponderance that facts arising since entry of the parenting plan constitute a substantial change in circumstances; (2) if so, the court must find modification is in the child’s best interests.
- Standard of review: factual finding of substantial change is reviewed for manifest weight.
- Facts and record: No live testimony or evidentiary hearing; court ruled on verified pleadings and counsel argument. David alleged three changes: (a) he moved back nearer to Oak Park from Brighton Park; (b) Kristian’s work travel; (c) increased ability to meet child’s “cultural needs” (e.g., hair care).
- Court’s analysis: (i) Appellant forfeited appellate argument regarding respondent’s travel by not pursuing it on appeal. (ii) Bare, unelaborated assertions about cultural competence (and new factual claims not presented below) were insufficient—appellant may not expand the evidentiary record on appeal. (iii) Relocation can be a substantial change, but here appellant returned to the same area where he lived when the original parenting plan was set; the move was not comparable to Adams (a custodial parent’s abrupt 324‑mile move) and did not, on this record, amount to a substantial change. Given the limited record, the trial court’s conclusion was reasonable and entitled to deference.

5) Practice implications
- Evidentiary record matters: motions to modify custody/parenting time should be supported by admissible evidence and, where possible, live testimony or evaluator reports—bare allegations in pleadings are likely insufficient.
- Focus on “since entry” facts: show how the alleged changes arose after the parenting plan and why they materially affect the child’s welfare.
- Preserve issues: raise and develop all arguments below; appellate courts will treat unpreserved points as forfeited.
- Briefing and record compliance: follow Supreme Court Rules precisely—failure risks sanctions or waiver of relief; nevertheless, courts may reach the merits if the record can be supplemented.
- Deferential review: trial court credibility and factual findings on “substantial change” will be upheld unless against the manifest weight of the evidence.