In re: Marriage of Tedrick, 2015 IL App (4th) 140773

1. Citation and parties

In re Marriage of Tedrick, 2015 IL App (4th) 140773 (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist. Jan. 29, 2015).
Petitioner-Appellant: Lindsay M. Tedrick (mother/residential parent).
Respondent-Appellee: Jonathan M. Tedrick (father).

2. Key legal issues

- Whether the trial court’s denial of the mother’s petition to permanently remove the child from Illinois to South Carolina was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether removal was in the child’s best interests considering (a) the mother’s motives, (b) impact on the parent–child relationship, (c) quality-of-life and employment improvements, and (d) appropriate visitation/transportation arrangements.

3. Holding / outcome

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the removal petition and remanded with directions to adopt a new visitation schedule providing liberal visitation for the father.

4. Significant legal reasoning

- Procedural posture: joint legal custody; mother designated residential parent. The guardian ad litem recommended granting removal.
- Evidence in mother’s favor: she held a demanding, health‑impairing position in Illinois (60–70 hrs/wk, migraines, weight loss, situational depression) and accepted a more stable 37.5‑hr/wk position in South Carolina closer to immediate family support. The new job offered improved work–life balance and future advancement despite lower pay; the child’s new school/daycare in South Carolina was satisfactory. Mother retained Illinois home pending removal decision.
- Father’s position: continued interest in maintaining relationship; worked a schedule that permitted visitation; historically had not always used his full parenting time but had used all post‑move. Concerned about unaccompanied flights and travel fatigue for the child.
- Appellate court concluded the trial court’s best‑interest determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence. It emphasized that the mother’s motive was to improve employment circumstances and obtain family support, not to frustrate father’s visitation, and removal would likely improve quality of life for mother and child. The court required a detailed, liberal revised visitation schedule to protect the father’s relationship with the child.

5. Practice implications

- For removal petitions, develop a robust record on: (a) parent’s legitimate reasons (employment, health, family support), (b) concrete benefits for child (education, daycare, stability), and (c) proposed travel/visitation logistics.
- Secure and highlight GAL support where possible.
- Anticipate appellate review for manifest‑weight error; preserve evidentiary findings.
- If removal is granted, negotiate detailed, liberal visitation/transport provisions (transportation costs, supervision, unaccompanied minor arrangements, midweek contacts, summer blocks) to withstand judicial scrutiny and protect the non‑residential parent’s access.