{ "id": 2592251, "name": "In re MARRIAGE OF NANCY M. STONE, Petitioner-Appellant, and FREDERICK W. STONE, Respondent-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "In re Marriage of Stone", "decision_date": "1990-06-29", "docket_number": "No. 1-89-0854", "first_page": "238", "last_page": "244", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "201 Ill. App. 3d 238" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "333 N.E.2d 271", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ill App. 3d 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2707443 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/31/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 N.E.2d 226", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Ill. App. 3d 785", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5641148 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/50/0785-01" ] }, { "cite": "496 N.E.2d 345", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 Ill. App. 3d 746", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3536715 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/145/0746-01" ] }, { "cite": "450 N.E.2d 985", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 Ill. App. 3d 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3557477 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/115/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 N.E.2d 279", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 Ill. App. 3d 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3350015 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/60/0026-01" ] }, { "cite": "518 N.E.2d 1041", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 7, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Ill. 2d 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3192736 ], "weight": 7, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "328" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/119/0316-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 670, "char_count": 14065, "ocr_confidence": 0.761, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1301890209943654e-07, "percentile": 0.5755878045399558 }, "sha256": "2fbad6b9c9c785124b33e9c4c458ab70254817f7d51671a47a9f1c4407394390", "simhash": "1:08d935579397cf3f", "word_count": 2351 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:48:55.467533+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re MARRIAGE OF NANCY M. STONE, Petitioner-Appellant, and FREDERICK W. STONE, Respondent-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE McNAMARA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPetitioner, Nancy M. Stone, sought a court order permitting her to remove her three minor children from Illinois to Colorado. Her ex-husband, respondent Frederick W. Stone, objected to the petition. The trial court denied the petition, and petitioner appeals. She contends that the court\u2019s order is against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nThe parties were married on September 13, 1975. The marriage was dissolved in April 1985 in the State of Idaho. On July 27, 1988, the petition to remove the children from Illinois to Colorado was filed.\nAt the August 19, 1988, hearing on the petition, petitioner testified that respondent is an airline pilot. Petitioner has worked part time at various jobs, and attended college to obtain a degree in accounting. During their nine years together, respondent was in the Air Force, and the parties lived in Nevada, in England, in Idaho, returned again to England, and then returned to Idaho.\nThey lived in Idaho for approximately five years. For nine months after the parties\u2019 separation, petitioner and the children remained in Idaho. Respondent visited the children in Idaho. He was out of military service and lived near Pittsburgh. When the children moved to Chicago, respondent visited for one week each month to see the children.\nHeather is now 12 years old, and Jason and Alexander are 9 years old. Alexander suffers from cerebral palsy, which resulted in severe brain damage caused by severe trauma either during birth or prior to birth. He attended a severe learning disability (SLD) program in Idaho, and is now attending an SLD program in Chicago.\nIn August 1985, petitioner and the children moved to Chicago. Her parents and siblings assisted her in financially supporting the children. She lives with the children in an apartment building owned by her parents. Her parents, grandmother, and brother also have apartments in the building. She paid $350 per month when she could afford it. In 1985 and 1986, petitioner completed an associate\u2019s degree at Daley College in Chicago. She worked part time on weekends demonstrating different products for a food company. She was also on a list for accounting temporary personnel. After obtaining her associate\u2019s degree, she attempted to get full-time employment several times, but was confronted with day-care problems for the children. Her parents worked, and only her 70-year-old grandmother was at home to take care of the children after school. Petitioner did not work full time because of the children\u2019s needs, particularly Alexander\u2019s need for special care.\nPetitioner seeks to return to Colorado, where she lived for seven years, and graduated from high school. Her fiance, William Andrejasich, previously an Illinois State trooper, has obtained employment with the Denver Police. They plan to marry in Denver. Petitioner\u2019s parents bought an apartment building in Denver, and her mother had moved there. Petitioner\u2019s mother works in Denver; petitioner\u2019s father previously worked at the University of Colorado. Petitioner\u2019s grandmother has also moved to Colorado. Petitioner and children, her parents and her grandmother would all have apartments in the building her parents purchased.\nPetitioner would finish her college education in accounting at the University of Colorado and obtain her CPA certification. She would care for children to earn money while she completed her degree. Heather and Jason would attend Catholic schools. Alexander would be enrolled in the Denver public school special education program.\nPetitioner testified that she wished to move to Denver \u201c[t]o improve my kids\u2019 and my life, and to get on with our life.\u201d She had never planned on staying in Chicago permanently, and had always hoped she could return to Denver. She and respondent had always agreed they did not want to raise the children in Chicago or in any eastern city. Her plans to move were not intended to deprive respondent of his visitation rights.\nJessie Garcia, petitioner\u2019s father, testified on her behalf. At the time of the hearing, he owned an apartment building in Chicago, and rented apartments to his mother-in-law, to his son, and to petitioner. Petitioner pays rent when she can afford it. He assists his daughter financially in buying food and clothing for the children. He would continue to assist petitioner financially if she were compelled to remain in Chicago. In Chicago, the children have supper with their grandparents every evening. Petitioner took some part-time work, but had to be home when Alex returned from the special education classes.\nGarcia had completed his plans to move to Denver. He bought a four-unit apartment building. His wife was already in Denver, working, and living in one of the apartments. The apartment building was very nice, as was the neighborhood itself.\nIn Denver, Garcia planned to assist his daughter in finishing her education and obtaining her CPA. They were investigating the possibility of petitioner providing day care at home in Denver. Garcia had obtained a commitment from a professor at the university to hire petitioner to care for his three children.\nRespondent testified that he was an airline pilot residing in Pittsburgh. He visits his children for one week each month in Chicago. Since June 1986, respondent has shared the rent on an apartment in Chicago with his father, and used his father\u2019s car when in Chicago. Petitioner never discussed the move to Denver with him. He never indicated to petitioner that he objected to the children being raised in Chicago. Respondent\u2019s sister and cousin live in Chicago and see the children every month. Other relatives also live near Chicago. He has no family in Denver.\nRespondent testified it would be \u201cextremely difficult\u201d for him to get to Denver. It would involve \u201clonger airline flights, possible connections, not being able to get there at all the [sic] due to the planes being full. I can only travel on a space-available basis if there is [sic] openings in the flights.\u201d On other airlines, he flies for 50% of the regular fare. In addition, there would be financial problems \u201cof the added expense of an apartment without me and my dad splitting the rent; and, of course, having a car that is available so that I can take the kids where they need to, the expenses are substantially more.\u201d In order to see the children each month, he has to rearrange his schedule so he can be off the entire week. It is \u201crelatively easy\u201d to get to Chicago, as there are 13 round trip flights a day.\nFrederick W. Stone, respondent\u2019s father, testified on behalf of respondent. He works for the city in the department of public works. For two years, since June 1986, he had seen his grandchildren for one week each month. Respondent had asked Stone if he \u201cwould be good enough to move out of my downtown apartment *** and he asked me if I would be willing to get an apartment in the old neighborhood and share it with him on a share-cost basis.\u201d When respondent\u2019s flights are late, Stone picks up the children. If the children moved, he would see them once a year.\nThe court denied the petition for removal of the children from Illinois.\nOn March 1, 1989, a hearing was held on petitioner\u2019s motion for reconsideration of that ruling. Petitioner testified that her father had not sold the Chicago apartment building or moved yet, \u201cbecause of me.\u201d She had seen a motel kitchenette near the airport in Denver which she thought respondent could use when he visited the children. He would pay $75 per week. In addition, he would pay $75 a week to rent a car.\nThe court denied the petition for reconsideration. It noted that \u201cmore than half\u201d of the evidence it heard was the same evidence that was before the court at the hearing, \u201cor was evidence that was available at that time that could have been brought before the court.\u201d The court refused to reopen the proofs or grant a new trial.\nThe court found petitioner \u201creally made no attempt to find any such employment here in Chicago.\u201d She could go to college, and her parents could \u201csupport her financially\u201d here. As to baby-sitting problems, there was little or no difference between the situation in Chicago and in Denver. In regard to petitioner\u2019s assertion that she was going to remarry, and that her fiance had found work in Denver, the court noted that petitioner failed to show why he could not work in Chicago since he was only going to Denver to follow petitioner, not because his job required it. The court concluded, \u201cI do not like to prohibit somebody from going somewhere to be with their family \u2014 but I will deny your motion.\u201d\nThe court may grant leave to the custodial parent to remove the children from Illinois where such approval is in the best interests of the children. Under Illinois law, the burden of proving that the removal is in the best interests of the children is on the party seeking the removal. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 40, par. 609.\nThe mere desire of the custodial parent to move out of Illinois, without more, is insufficient to show that the move is in the children\u2019s best interests. (In re Marriage of Eckert (1988), 119 Ill. 2d 316, 518 N.E.2d 1041.) The determination of what is in the best interests of the children requires an evaluation of many factors and cannot be reduced to a simple bright-line test. (In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316, 518 N.E.2d 1041.) The court should consider the proposed move in terms of likelihood for enhancing the general quality of life for both the custodial parent and the children. In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316, 518 N.E.2d 1041; Gallagher v. Gallagher (1978), 60 Ill. App. 3d 26, 376 N.E.2d 279.\nThe court must recognize that it is in the best interests of children to have a healthy and close relationship with both parents, as well as with other family members, and thus the visitation rights, of the noncustodial parent should be carefully considered. (In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316, 518 N.E.2d 1041, citing In re Marriage of Brady (1983), 115 Ill. App. 3d 521, 450 N.E.2d 985.) It is also important to determine whether a realistic and reasonable visitation schedule can be reached if the move is allowed, which will preserve and foster the child\u2019s relationship with the noncustodial parent. (In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316, 518 N.E.2d 1041; In re Custody of Anderson (1986), 145 Ill. App. 3d 746, 496 N.E.2d 345.) A trial court\u2019s determination of what is in the best interests of the children should not be reversed unless it is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence and it appears that a manifest injustice has occurred. In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316, 328, 518 N.E.2d 1041, citing Quirin v. Quirin (1977), 50 Ill. App. 3d 785, 365 N.E.2d 226; Hickey v. Hickey (1975), 31 Ill App. 3d 257, 333 N.E.2d 271.\nIn the present case, petitioner testified that she wished to move to complete her college education and to obtain her parents\u2019 financial assistance. The evidence showed, however, that those same goals could be met in Chicago. Petitioner\u2019s father testified that he would continue to assist petitioner financially if she remained in Chicago. Interestingly, petitioner never attempted to finish her college education and obtain her CPA during the last several years she lived -with her parents in Chicago. Petitioner testified she would provide day care to earn money in Denver. Yet she never attempted to earn money in this manner in Chicago during the several years prior to filing this petition, and never sought full-time work.\nWe conclude that the trial court could properly find that \u201c[petitioner\u2019s] reasons for not working or not going to school here [in Chicago are] insufficient for me to say that the quality of life here would not be sufficient for the children to live if she would make whatever efforts that were necessary for her to reasonably be allowed to become self-sufficient to support those children.\u201d\nMoreover, the evidence established that respondent was an exemplary parent who had an excellent relationship with his children. Respondent asked his father to move from downtown and share an apartment with respondent and the children one week each month. Respondent and his father moved to the new apartment; furnished it; purchased a car together; and established the apartment as a home for the children a week each month. Respondent participates extensively in the children\u2019s school and other activities. It was more difficult for respondent to fly to Denver than to Chicago, and it would be financially difficult because he would have to pay additional rent and get a car.\nPetitioner urges that respondent rent a motel kitchenette one week each month in Denver, where the children could stay with him. The trial court was not required to find such an arrangement, as compared with the Chicago home they shared with their father and grandfather, would enhance the general quality of life for the children, or otherwise be in their best interests.\nIn addition, most of respondent\u2019s extended family lives in the Chicago area. (See In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316, 518 N.E.2d 1041.) The children spend one week each month living with their paternal grandfather. During that time, they have frequent contact with their extended family.\nWe conclude that the record supports the trial court\u2019s order denying permission to remove the children to Colorado. The evidence sufficiently supports the trial court\u2019s decision that petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the removal to Colorado would be in the best interests of the children.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nLaPORTA, P.J., and EGAN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE McNAMARA" } ], "attorneys": [ "David A. Thompson, of Hanover Park, for appellant.", "Stuart B. Dubin, Ltd., of Chicago (Stuart B. Dubin, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re MARRIAGE OF NANCY M. STONE, Petitioner-Appellant, and FREDERICK W. STONE, Respondent-Appellee.\nFirst District (6th Division)\nNo. 1-89-0854\nOpinion filed June 29, 1990.\nDavid A. Thompson, of Hanover Park, for appellant.\nStuart B. Dubin, Ltd., of Chicago (Stuart B. Dubin, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0238-01", "first_page_order": 258, "last_page_order": 264 }