In re Marriage of Stock, 2019 IL App (5th) 190364-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Stock, No. 5-19-0364 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist. Sept. 3, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Bethany S. Stock. Respondent‑Appellant: Robert W. Stock. Appeal from denial of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to compel mother to return the parties’ 4‑year‑old child from Texas to Illinois. (Interlocutory appeal under Ill. S. Ct. R. 307(d).)

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a TRO requiring the mother to relocate the child back to Illinois.
- Application of TRO standards in family/relocation context: protectable right, irreparable harm, inadequate remedy at law, likelihood of success on the merits, and preserving the status quo.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the TRO. The father failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the essential elements for injunctive relief, and returning the child would not preserve the status quo.

4) Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- TROs are an extraordinary remedy meant to preserve the status quo pending a merits hearing. The party seeking a TRO must establish (1) a protectable right, (2) irreparable harm without the injunction, (3) no adequate remedy at law, and (4) likelihood of success on the merits.
- By the time the TRO was heard, mother and child had lived in Texas about one year (moved May 23, 2018). A full merits hearing was scheduled ≈2 months away. The court found the status quo was the child’s residence in Texas; compelling immediate return would not preserve it.
- The record showed significant concerns about the father’s fitness and compliance: prior positive drug tests, court‑ordered supervised visitation, an incident in February 2019 where the father refused to return the child (a public standoff recorded on Facebook), and alleged criminal indictments requiring an ankle monitor and restrictions in Texas. The child’s counselor and GAL emphasized the child’s need for stability and gradual reintroduction to the father through supervised visits. The trial court instead ordered supervised visits rather than an immediate relocation.
- Given these facts, father could not show irreparable harm or lack of an adequate remedy, nor a clear likelihood of success sufficient to justify the drastic relief.

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Seek injunctive relief promptly after relocation; long delays weaken TRO claims and shift “status quo.”
- TROs in relocation disputes are difficult where the relocating parent and child have established residence and a merits hearing is imminent.
- Evidence of parental fitness, prior noncompliance, criminal issues, and child‑welfare/counselor testimony will strongly influence the court’s weighing of irreparable harm and the appropriate interim remedy (supervised visits vs. forced return).
- Consider interim remedies (supervised visitation, temporary custody arrangements) if forcible return is unlikely; memorialize timeline and preserve record for merits hearing.
- Note: this opinion is Rule 23 (non‑precedential) and may be cited only as permitted by that rule.