In re Marriage of Zagorski, 2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Zagorski, 2023 IL App (2d) 220216‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Feb. 15, 2023). Petitioner‑Appellant: Damian Zagorski. Respondent‑Appellee: Anna Zagorski. (Rule 23(b) order; non‑precedential.)

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in allocating a majority of parenting time to the mother.
2. Whether the trial court permissibly assigned the marital residence to the mother to preserve the child’s stability. (Related: application of best‑interest factors under 750 ILCS 5/602.7 and maintenance/child support under section 504.)

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court’s allocation of majority parenting time to Anna and its property/support orders (Anna awarded the marital residence; Damian ordered to pay maintenance of $279.17/month for 76 months and child support $314/month) were upheld.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The trial court applied the statutory best‑interest factors (750 ILCS 5/602.7) and made factual findings about: the child’s adjustment to home/school/community; each parent’s caretaking role over the prior 24 months; parental schedules and availability; physical/mental health; cooperation on decision‑making; and presence of a stable support person (Anna’s long‑term friend who planned to live with her).
- The court found Anna had been the primary caretaker and that the child was well adjusted to the existing routine; awarding the residence to Anna was driven by preserving the child’s stability given the mother’s majority parenting time during the school year.
- Although Damian showed competence and increasing involvement, the court emphasized continuity of care and the child’s best interest. There was no evidence of physical abuse; some demeaning parental remarks were noted but did not outweigh stability concerns.
- The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility and factual determinations and concluded the parenting‑time allocation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Practice implications for attorneys
- Emphasize continuity and stability: courts give weight to the primary caretaker role and maintaining the child’s home/school routine; securing the primary residence can support a request for majority parenting time.
- Build a factual record on caretaking over the relevant 24‑month period, parental schedules, cooperation, and available support persons.
- Address minor health issues proactively (show manageability) and quantify financial ability to maintain residence/support.
- Expect appellate deference to trial court credibility findings; overturning a parenting allocation requires demonstrating manifest error in application of statutory best‑interest factors.
- Note procedural posture: Rule 23(b) order is non‑precedential but still persuasive within the district.