Background
Jennifer Brown and Brian Sontag’s 2016 allocation judgment gave them equal parenting time and shared educational decision-making responsibility for their son, D.S. It reserved the child’s address of record for school purposes and directed the parents to determine the address three years later. In 2019, both parents moved within the attendance boundaries of Alcott Elementary School, agreed that D.S. would attend Alcott, and used Brian’s address for enrollment.
Jennifer moved outside Alcott’s boundaries in 2021, while Brian remained in the district and purchased his residence there. After later moving to Wilmette, Jennifer sought to be designated the custodial parent for school purposes so she could enroll D.S. in Wilmette schools. The circuit court denied her petition, finding that the parties had already designated Brian through their conduct and that the relief Jennifer wanted required modification of the allocation judgment. The court also declined to apply a best-interests analysis in the designation proceeding and barred Jennifer’s proposed expert testimony.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. It held that the parties’ conduct established their 2019 agreement to use Brian’s address for school purposes: Brian completed the enrollment forms using his address, and the parents continued using that address each year. The allocation judgment did not require the designation itself to be in writing, so the absence of a separate written designation did not negate their agreement.
Because the parents had already agreed that Brian’s address would be used, there was no unresolved initial designation for the circuit court to make, and the best-interests standard governing an initial allocation of parental decision-making responsibilities under section 602.5 did not apply. Jennifer’s effort to change the designation so D.S. could attend school in Wilmette instead sought a modification of the established arrangement. Such relief required a petition under section 610.5 alleging a substantial change in circumstances and showing that modification was necessary to serve the child’s best interests. Jennifer repeatedly disclaimed any request to modify the allocation judgment, so the relief she sought was unavailable under her petition. The court therefore did not separately reach her expert-testimony argument.
Key Takeaways
- Parents may establish a school-address designation through their conduct when their parenting agreement does not require the designation to be in writing.
- A request to replace an established school-custodian designation is a modification request, not an unresolved initial designation dispute.
- A parent seeking that change must proceed under section 610.5 and establish both a substantial change in circumstances and that modification is necessary to serve the child’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that courts will look beyond a petition’s label to the substance of the requested relief. When parents have implemented a school-enrollment arrangement for years, a parent cannot obtain a different result through a ministerial designation proceeding while denying that a modification is sought.
Family-law practitioners should plead school-placement changes under the Act’s modification provision when the requested relief would alter an established parenting arrangement. Otherwise, evidence concerning competing schools or the child’s best interests may not become relevant in the proceeding actually before the court.