In re Marriage of Nancanabo, 2019 IL App (1st) 172680-UB

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Benequende Ousmane Nacanabo and Aissata Djire, No. 1‑17‑2680 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Div. Aug. 7, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the circuit court erred in denying respondent Djire’s 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401 petition to vacate a prior relocation order that permitted father (Nacanabo) to move the parties’ two children to Burkina Faso.
- Proper standard and scope for §2‑1401 relief (collateral attack vs. substitute for direct appeal), and the Airoom elements for factual challenges (meritorious defense, due diligence in original proceedings, due diligence in filing §2‑1401).
- Evidentiary record requirements on collateral attack (need for transcript to establish trial error).

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Djire’s §2‑1401 petition.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Appellate court emphasized posture: the October 2016 relocation order and January 2017 denial of reconsideration were final and not appealed; the §2‑1401 filing was a collateral attack on that final order.
- Where a §2‑1401 petition raises factual matters, petitioner must plead specific facts satisfying Airoom (meritorious defense; diligence in presenting it originally; diligence in filing the petition). The circuit court’s denial of such a petition is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- §2‑1401 cannot be used to re‑litigate issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal. The court cited authority rejecting §2‑1401 as a substitute for an appeal.
- The appellant alleged the court improperly excluded evidence of spousal/child abuse and failed to appoint a guardian ad litem. The appellate panel found: (a) the record showed abuse allegations were presented at the relocation hearing and the trial court rejected them as not credible (the court credited a rebuttal witness and questioned motives/credibility); (b) Djire produced no trial transcript to demonstrate exclusion or other reversible error; (c) she did not meet Airoom requirements to show a meritorious, previously unavailable defense. Those failures fatally undermined the §2‑1401 petition.

5) Practice implications
- Do not substitute §2‑1401 for a timely direct appeal of a final family court order; preserve appellate rights.
- Preserve the record: obtain and include transcripts of contested hearings when alleging trial‑level evidentiary error. Absent a transcript, assertions of exclusion/erroneous rulings are unlikely to succeed.
- When pursuing §2‑1401 factual relief, plead and prove Airoom elements with specificity and explain why the facts were not and could not have been presented earlier.
- For relocation disputes involving abuse or GAL claims, raise and secure rulings at the hearing and on reconsideration; document efforts to admit evidence and counsel objections contemporaneously.