In re Parentage of C.H.P., 2023 IL App (4th) 221003-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of C.H.P., No. 4‑22‑1003 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. Apr. 19, 2023) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Melissa S. A.; Respondent‑Appellant: Cameron K. P.; minor: C.H.P.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s modification of a shared parenting plan (awarding Melissa majority parenting time and supporting enrollment of the child in an Illinois kindergarten) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether Melissa committed indirect civil contempt by enrolling the child in Illinois without Cameron’s agreement or a separate court order.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court’s modification and school placement decision were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court’s denial of Cameron’s indirect civil contempt petition was likewise not against the manifest weight.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Jurisdiction/enrollment: The Ohio parenting judgment that incorporated the parties’ shared parenting plan was enrolled in Illinois; the Illinois court found that Illinois had subject‑matter jurisdiction because neither parent nor the child resided in Ohio. After jurisdiction was transferred to Illinois, Cameron did not pursue his pending Ohio modification petition and instead litigated in Illinois.
- Standard of review and best‑interests analysis: Modification of allocation of parental responsibilities was evaluated under the best‑interests framework and reviewed for being against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings.
- Factual findings supporting modification: The trial court credited evidence that the child had been enrolled and was well‑adjusted in Milledgeville kindergarten (teacher testimony of marked improvement and no unmet needs), that local after‑school care was available and convenient to Melissa’s work, and that Melissa provided stable caregiving. The court weighed travel burdens and practical difficulties posed by the parents’ residences in different states.
- Contempt: The criminal standard for indirect civil contempt requires willful, contumacious violation of a court order. The trial court found Melissa acted without willful contumacy (evidence showed she deliberated, waited as long as practicable to enroll, and reasonably concluded school placement was in the child’s best interests), so contempt was properly denied.

5) Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Jurisdiction and forum diligence matter: promptly address forum transfers and pending out‑of‑state petitions; failure to pursue remedies in the originating forum can affect outcomes.
- For school‑age children, concrete evidence of the child’s adjustment and local support services (teacher, after‑school programs, employer flexibility) strongly supports modification motions seeking continuity.
- Indirect contempt is difficult to prove—document good‑faith efforts to cooperate and decisions grounded in the child’s best interests.
- Draft shared parenting agreements to explicitly address school‑district selection and relocation procedures to avoid litigation when a child reaches school age.