In re Marriage of Pauley, 2024 IL App (3d) 230416-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Pauley, 2024 IL App (3d) 230416‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., Feb. 5, 2024) (Rule 23 non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: James Pauley. Respondent‑Appellant: Jane Pauley.

- Key legal issues
Whether the trial court’s denial of mother’s petition to relocate the children from Illinois to Summerlin, Nevada was against the manifest weight of the evidence; application and weighing of the statutory best‑interest factors in 750 ILCS 5/609.2(g).

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The circuit court’s denial of Jane’s relocation petition was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The trial court reviewed and made explicit findings on the 11 statutory factors under 750 ILCS 5/609.2(g). Although a guardian ad litem recommended relocation (finding five factors favored mother, two favored father, four neutral), the trial court weighed the evidence differently. Key factual considerations supporting denial included: (1) Jane had already purchased Nevada property while the petition was pending and had no local job offers; (2) the substantial distance and travel logistics would materially reduce the non‑residential parent’s (father’s) ability to participate in day‑to‑day parenting (homework, school activities, coaching) despite technological contact and increased parenting during breaks; (3) strength of children’s ties to extended family and community in Illinois; (4) conflicting evidence about educational advantages (trial court viewed school comparability and gave education largely neutral or opposing weight). The court concluded relocation would not be in the children’s best interest. On appeal, the standard of review was manifest‑weight: appellate deference was owed to the trial court’s credibility and fact‑weighing determinations; the record supported the court’s conclusions.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
1) Meticulously develop the record on each 609.2(g) factor—education, extended family ties, logistics, employment, and reasons for the move. 2) Provide concrete evidence minimizing adverse impacts (detailed parenting/transportation plans, job offers, school enrollments, IEP/placement confirmations). 3) Avoid unilateral steps (e.g., purchasing a home) before court approval; such actions may be viewed negatively. 4) If relocation is contested, propose realistic, specific parenting schedules and travel plans to preserve court credibility. 5) Don’t assume a GAL recommendation is dispositive—trial courts may weigh factors differently and those findings receive deference on appeal.