In re Marriage of Whitney H., 2021 IL App (4th) 210357-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Whitney H., 2021 IL App (4th) 210357‑U. Petitioner‑Appellant: Whitney H.; Respondent‑Appellee: Daniel B.; Logan County Circuit Court (No. 19D20).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court’s allocation of joint decision‑making but awarding respondent the majority of parenting time was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2) Whether denying petitioner retroactive child support and ordering petitioner to pay ongoing child support was an abuse of discretion.
3) Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s request to permanently relocate the minor child to Indiana.

- Holding/outcome
The Fourth District affirmed. The appellate court held (1) the parenting time and joint decision‑making allocation were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying retroactive child support and ordering petitioner to pay support going forward, and (3) denial of the requested permanent relocation was not erroneous.

- Significant legal reasoning
The appellate court applied the appropriate standards of review: manifest‑weight review for custody/parenting time findings and abuse‑of‑discretion review for child support and relocation determinations. The court upheld the trial court’s credibility findings and factual inferences, which were supported by the record. Key evidentiary points relied on by the trial court (and sustained on appeal) included: petitioner’s unilateral relocation to Indiana after an emergency protection order; inconsistent statements about employment, childcare availability, and the reasons for leaving Illinois; the petitioner’s selection of Indiana daycare and pediatric care without consulting respondent; evidence of petitioner’s ability to obtain employment and licensure outside Illinois; respondent’s steady employment and childcare plans; and communications showing limited cooperation and missed opportunities for shared decision‑making. Based on that factual matrix, the trial court reasonably concluded the child’s best interests favored substantial parenting time with respondent and denied the proposed permanent relocation. The court also reasonably exercised discretion on retroactivity and future child support given the parents’ relative incomes, conduct, and timing of support requests.

- Practice implications
- Unilateral relocation—even after a temporary protection order—creates significant risks; litigants should seek explicit court permission for permanent moves and should preserve clear record and evidence on best‑interest factors.
- Credibility and consistency of testimony are decisive in custody disputes; contradictory public statements (e.g., fundraising pages) can be harmful.
- Document childcare availability, medical communications, and job searches contemporaneously; courts scrutinize claims about inability to work or obtain childcare.
- Requests for retroactive support are discretionary; timely motions and preserved discovery on income and expenses improve chances for relief.