Background
During the parties’ dissolution case, they entered an agreed allocation judgment providing joint decision-making and equal parenting time for their young daughter. Father later accepted a U.S. Navy lawyer position in Washington State and petitioned to relocate the child there.
After mother sought to relocate to California, the circuit court ordered that she not remove the child from Illinois. Mother later admitted taking the child to Ohio despite that order. Following emergency proceedings, the court placed the child temporarily with father, permitted temporary relocation to Washington, and required mother’s parenting time to be supervised in a therapeutic setting.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed. It held that the order was for temporary—not permanent—relocation, was not imposed as a contempt sanction, and was governed by the best-interests standard applicable to temporary relocation.
Mother did not provide a transcript or acceptable substitute for the November 7 hearing, where the circuit court heard evidence supporting its decision. Without that record, the appellate court presumed the trial court had an adequate factual basis and followed the law, including consideration of the relocation factors. The court also concluded that the temporary relocation was authorized as a protective measure after the trial court found mother had seriously endangered the child.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant challenging a best-interests determination must provide a complete record of the relevant evidentiary hearing.
- A temporary relocation order is distinct from a permanent relocation ruling and from a contempt sanction.
- A court need not expressly discuss every relocation factor in its written order when the record supports the presumption that it considered the law and evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the decisive effect of an incomplete appellate record in family-law appeals. A parent challenging an emergency custody or relocation ruling cannot establish that the trial court lacked evidence if the hearing transcript is absent.
It also confirms that Illinois courts may use temporary relocation as a child-protection measure when supported by findings of serious endangerment and the child’s best interests.