In re Marriage of Stathakis, 2019 IL App (2d) 181028-U

In re Marriage of Stathakis, 2019 IL App (2d) 181028‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Stathakis, 2019 IL App (2d) 181028‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Aug. 6, 2019) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellee / Cross‑Appellant: Cindy Stathakis. Respondent‑Appellant / Cross‑Appellee: Peter Stathakis. Appeals from Du Page County (No. 17‑D‑112).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the relocation order and the allocation judgment.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying (a) motions to continue/reset discovery after counsel substitution, (b) motion to appoint a court professional under 604.10, and (c) request to call an out‑of‑state witness; and in denying a motion to reopen proofs after trial.
- Whether the trial court’s grant of the wife’s petition to relocate the children from Illinois to Canada was against the manifest weight of the evidence under 750 ILCS 5/609.2.
- Whether the allocation judgment (giving the mother sole decision‑making on religion and prioritizing school choice) violated the Establishment Clause.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to correct the allocation judgment nunc pro tunc.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court held it had jurisdiction, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- It affirmed: denial of the pretrial motions and motion to reopen proofs; the relocation order (trial court’s best‑interest finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence); and that the allocation awarding the mother sole decision‑making about religion and prioritizing school choice did not violate the Establishment Clause.
- It reversed the trial court’s refusal to correct the allocation judgment nunc pro tunc and remanded for appropriate correction.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction: appealable orders included the relocation grant plus the allocation judgment; Rule 23 disposition nonetheless allowed.
- Standard of review: discretionary rulings (continuance, appointment of experts, witness exclusion, reopening proofs) reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual best‑interest findings reviewed for manifest‑weight; constitutional claim reviewed de novo.
- Relocation: trial court applied statutory 609.2 best‑interest factors (child adjustment, parental roles, relative access, educational opportunities, parental plans and motives) and relied on GAL’s recommendation and testimonial evidence (schools, family networks, parental plans); evidence supported relocation to Canada by preponderance.
- Establishment Clause: allocation of parental decision‑making regarding religion is a private parental decision and the order did not constitute state endorsement or coercion of religion; prioritizing a school did not amount to unconstitutional establishment.

5) Practice implications
- Preserve record on substitution of counsel and discovery scheduling; last‑minute substitutions carry risk of denied continuances.
- Motions under 604.10 are discretionary—expect strict proof to obtain court‑appointed experts.
- Present robust, fact‑specific evidence on statutory 609.2 factors (GAL reports, schooling options, support networks, children’s adjustment) in relocation cases.
- If an allocation order contains drafting errors, promptly seek nunc pro tunc correction and preserve related objections; appellate courts may reverse only the refusal to correct formal errors while leaving substantive rulings intact.
- For religion‑related allocations, frame orders as parental decision‑making to reduce Establishment Clause exposure.