In re Marriage of Perez, 2015 IL App (3d) 140876

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Perez, 2015 IL App (3d) 140876 (Ill. App. Ct. Apr. 3, 2015).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Stacey E. Perez. Respondent-Appellee: Robert A. Perez.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred by ordering equal (50/50) parenting time under a joint custody order.
- Whether the trial court erred by declining to designate the mother’s home as the child’s “primary residence.”

3. Holding/outcome
- The Appellate Court affirmed. The trial court’s award of joint legal custody with equal parenting time and its refusal to designate Stacey’s home as the primary residence were upheld.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Statutory framework: the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act requires custody determinations to be made in the child’s best interests and authorizes joint custody where appropriate (750 ILCS 5/602; 602.1). Section 602.1(d) does not mandate or forbid equal parenting time—its plain language simply disclaims any presumption that “joint custody shall necessarily mean equal parenting time.”
- Standard of review: custody allocations are entrusted to the trial court’s broad discretion; appellate courts give strong deference because trial courts observe witnesses and evaluate credibility (Davis; Shinall). Reversal requires abuse of discretion or a decision contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Application to facts: the record demonstrated a high level of cooperation and effective co-parenting (both parents heavily involved, geographic proximity, extended-family support, agreed educational/medical decisions). The trial court reasonably found equal parenting time workable and in the child’s best interests. There was no showing the court abused its discretion. Regarding residence designation, the court’s decision not to label a primary residence was consistent with the 50/50 split and the absence of evidence that such a designation was necessary for the child’s best interests.

5. Practice implications (tips for attorneys)
- Where parties can show ongoing cooperation, proximity, and established shared caregiving, trial courts will frequently permit joint custody with equal parenting time; present concrete evidence of workable logistics (schedules, schools, support networks).
- Don’t assume section 602.1(d) bars 50/50 time—argue statutory plain language and best-interest factors.
- If seeking designation of a primary residence, develop record-specific evidence why such designation is necessary for the child’s stability (schooling, continuity of care, detriment from equal split).
- Expect strong appellate deference to trial courts on custody scheduling; preserve detailed factual findings at trial to aid appellate review.