In re Marriage of Schouten, 2021 IL App (2d) 200765-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Schouten, 2021 IL App (2d) 200765‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Apr. 12, 2021) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellee: Eric J. Schouten; Respondent‑Appellant: Nataliya S. Schouten (mother seeking relocation with child S.S. to Tampa, Florida).

- Key legal issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion or rendered a decision contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence in denying the mother’s petition to relocate the parties’ daughter under 750 ILCS 5/609.2; application of the Eckhart best‑interest factors and the 11 statutory factors in section 609.2(g); credibility and weight of evidence concerning job, fiancé/step‑parent role, and effects on parent‑child relationship and schooling.

- Holding/outcome
Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court’s denial of the relocation petition was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
The mother sought to move to Florida for a Tampa‑based job with Fidelity Information Services and to marry her fiancé, who resides in Tampa. The guardian ad litem (GAL) investigated, applied the Eckhart factors and the 609.2(g) statutory factors, and recommended denial, finding the relocation driven largely by the mother’s new marriage (“This is all about the marriage”), rather than an overriding demonstrable advantage to the child. Key factual findings: child (age 8) has stronger bonding with mother but also regular, meaningful contact with father; prior false abuse allegations had temporarily deprived the father of time with the child; father’s request to prevent relocation centered on preserving “constancy and consistency” of frequent visitation (not merely aggregate time); Florida private school advantages were minimal compared to existing Illinois public school; extended family ties on both sides weighed against relocation. The court credited the GAL and witnesses, finding mother’s remote‑work assurances and long‑term employment prospects uncertain. The appellate court applied the deferential manifest‑weight standard to the trial court’s credibility determinations and best‑interest balancing and found no error.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
1) Prepare robust, specific proof for relocation petitions: firm employer commitments, long‑term work‑from‑home guarantees, comparative schooling analyses, and concrete plans for preserving regular parent‑child contact (schedules, travel allowances, paid visits).
2) Anticipate and address concerns about motive (e.g., marriage/step‑family) and prior interference with parenting time; negative inferences can be outcome‑determinative.
3) Use the GAL’s inquiry to your client’s advantage—facilitate full cooperation and reliable third‑party evidence.
4) Expect appellate deference to trial court credibility and best‑interest findings—win at trial through detailed, credible factual proof rather than predictive legal arguments.
Note: this opinion is Rule 23(b) non‑precedential.