Background
Brian Kreps and Ashley Kreps, now Ashley Birdwell, divorced in 2021 and shared significant decision-making responsibilities for their son, O.K. Ashley received most parenting time, while Brian had weekly evening visits, alternating weekends, summer time, and holidays. The parties later disputed Brian’s parenting time and O.K.’s care, education, and relationship with his paternal grandfather.
In June 2024, Ashley gave notice and formally petitioned for permission to relocate with O.K. to Evansville, Indiana. She planned to marry William Birdwell on July 5, had received an offer for a teaching position in Evansville, and asserted that the move would provide O.K. with better schools, more sleep, a structured home, and relationships with his new stepsisters. Brian objected, emphasizing O.K.’s academic success, improved speech, established routine, and family connections in Illinois.
After a two-day bench trial, the circuit court denied relocation and granted Brian’s request to modify parental responsibilities. The appellate court initially reversed and remanded because the circuit court had not supplied supporting factual findings. On remand, the circuit court entered detailed findings, again denied relocation, found a substantial change in circumstances, and approved a parenting plan under which O.K. primarily lived with Brian during the school week. Ashley appealed again.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the denial of Ashley’s relocation petition. Applying manifest-weight review, it concluded that the circuit court reasonably evaluated the statutory relocation factors. Evidence supported findings that O.K. was thriving in Brian’s structured care, earning strong grades, improving substantially in speech therapy, maintaining friendships and extended-family relationships, and experiencing no school problems related to fatigue. The circuit court was also entitled to give little weight to anecdotal claims that the Evansville schools were better and to find that relocation would significantly impair Brian’s involvement.
The court also affirmed the modified parenting-time arrangement. Ashley’s proposed relocation constituted a substantial change in circumstances, and denying the move required a revised schedule because O.K. would primarily reside with Brian during the school week. Giving substantial deference to the circuit court’s credibility and best-interests determinations, the appellate court held that neither the relocation ruling nor the parenting-time modification was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A relocation decision turns on the child’s best interests under the statutory factors, not merely the relocating parent’s marriage, employment opportunity, or belief that the proposed home would be better.
- An appellate court will not reweigh competing evidence when the circuit court’s factual findings are reasonable and supported by the record.
- A denied relocation may still create changed circumstances requiring a new parenting-time schedule, particularly when the parents are living in different states and the child must remain near the existing school.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the importance of developing concrete evidence for each statutory relocation factor. General claims about superior schools or household advantages may carry limited weight when the child is already succeeding academically, socially, and developmentally in the existing community.
It also shows why trial courts must state factual findings sufficient for appellate review. Although the initial orders were reversed for lack of findings, the detailed findings entered on remand supported affirmance of both the relocation denial and the parenting-time modification.