In re Parentage of L.C., 2023 IL App (2d) 220325-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of L.C., 2023 IL App (2d) 220325‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Feb. 10, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Axel C. — Respondent/Appellant: Jasmin L.; minor: L.C.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in finding a "substantial change in circumstances" warranting modification of an existing allocation judgment.
- Whether modification (changing primary‑parenting time from mother to father so the child could attend school in the father’s district) was in the child’s best interests.
- Whether the father’s petition should have been treated as a relocation petition under 750 ILCS 5/609.2, rather than a modification petition.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court’s findings (substantial change and that the change in primary‑parenting time was in L.C.’s best interests) were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The mother waived any objection to the petition not being treated as a relocation petition.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: trial court’s factual findings (substantial change; best interests) reviewed for manifest weight of the evidence.
- Evidence supporting modification: L.C. had primarily resided with the father since March 2020; father moved to Yorkville and sought that L.C. attend a Yorkville school; L.C. was diagnosed with ADHD while the case was pending and the guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended the Yorkville school based on its comparatively superior ratings (Niche.com) and perceived ability to meet L.C.’s needs; GAL’s home visits favored father for stability and flexibility; no "red flags" at either home.
- The court relied on the GAL’s evaluation and testimony about educational needs and parental stability. Although the GAL had not contacted the schools directly (she relied on Niche ratings), the trial court found the totality of the evidence sufficient to establish both a substantial change and best‑interest justification.
- Relocation/waiver: the appellate court concluded the mother waived her objection to the court’s treatment of the petition (i.e., did not timely press that the statutory relocation framework should control).

5. Practice implications (concise)
- To modify custody for educational/special‑needs reasons, document (a) a substantial change (e.g., de facto primary residence), (b) child’s specific educational/medical needs, and (c) comparative school/program evidence (prefer primary, direct evidence from IEP/IEP team, school officials, or evaluations rather than only third‑party ratings).
- GAL reports and home‑visit evidence carry significant weight; courts will consider parental work flexibility and household stability.
- If you intend to invoke relocation protections under §609.2, timely assert the relocation framework at trial; failure to preserve the argument can be deemed waiver.
- Be mindful of the manifest‑weight standard on appeal: build a robust trial record (live testimony, documentary evidence from schools/medical providers) to sustain factual findings.