Background
During the parties’ divorce, Elizabeth W. petitioned to relocate their two young children from Quincy, Illinois, to the Bay Area, California. She testified that both parents grew up there, both sets of grandparents and other extended family remained there, and she could live with her parents while rebuilding her life-coaching practice. She also presented evidence that Padraic R. was seeking academic employment outside Quincy and had said he intended to leave with or without the children.
Elizabeth proposed a parenting schedule centered on Padraic’s academic breaks and holidays, with travel assistance and regular video contact. After Elizabeth and her father testified, Padraic moved for judgment under section 2-1110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that she had not made a prima facie case that relocation was in the children’s best interests. The circuit court granted the motion and denied relocation.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, reversed and remanded. It held that, although the circuit court implicitly completed section 2-1110’s first step by proceeding to weigh the evidence, its conclusion that Elizabeth had failed to establish a prima facie case for relocation was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Elizabeth’s unrebutted evidence supported a prima facie showing that the children’s best interests favored relocation: the parents’ and children’s California family ties, the lack of stable housing and employment prospects in Quincy, proposed housing and support from Elizabeth’s parents, potential educational and medical benefits, and a feasible vacation-and-holiday parenting schedule. The appellate court did not order relocation, however. It remanded for Padraic to present evidence and directed the trial court to appoint a new guardian ad litem, criticizing ideological comments in the existing GAL report as inappropriate and unhelpful.
Key Takeaways
- A court may not grant a section 2-1110 motion when the relocating parent’s evidence establishes a prima facie best-interests case.
- Evidence of extended-family support, housing stability, employment uncertainty, and workable long-distance parenting arrangements can support relocation.
- Reversal of a directed finding does not itself authorize relocation; the opposing parent must be allowed to present evidence on remand.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that relocation cases require a fact-specific best-interests analysis and that a long-distance schedule is not categorically inadequate merely because it relies on school breaks and holidays. It also underscores that the trial court must assess the record developed at the hearing before cutting off a relocation petitioner’s case.
The court’s comments on the GAL report are a pointed reminder that a GAL’s evaluation must remain focused on the children’s best interests, free from ideological commentary unrelated to the evidence.