{ "id": 2928707, "name": "In re MARRIAGE OF ANNE M. GUSTAVSON, n/k/a Anne M. Veselack, Petitioner-Appellee and WILLIAM D. GUSTAVSON, Respondent-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "In re Marriage Gustavson", "decision_date": "1993-08-05", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201492\u20140964", "first_page": "797", "last_page": "802", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "247 Ill. App. 3d 797" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "574 N.E.2d 1257", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1261" }, { "page": "1260" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "215 Ill. App. 3d 378", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5294228 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "383" }, { "page": "383" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/215/0378-01" ] }, { "cite": "591 N.E.2d 960", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "963" }, { "page": "963", "parenthetical": "\"The paramount issue in all matters concerning custody of a child is his or her welfare\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 Ill. App. 3d 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5221761 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "344" }, { "page": "344" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/228/0339-01" ] }, { "cite": "485 N.E.2d 367", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "371" }, { "page": "371" }, { "page": "371" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 Ill. 2d 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3129906 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "499" }, { "page": "499" }, { "page": "499" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/108/0489-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 669, "char_count": 13161, "ocr_confidence": 0.794, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.355662609006069e-08, "percentile": 0.5140770755360641 }, "sha256": "4e49e8f2737c93d937a308feceb2fcd4d1ca5263c2f2a220db7741e2c4da2e2c", "simhash": "1:a9bae6ea6ea98fff", "word_count": 2178 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:38:22.874712+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re MARRIAGE OF ANNE M. GUSTAVSON, n/k/a Anne M. Veselack, Petitioner-Appellee and WILLIAM D. GUSTAVSON, Respondent-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE COOK\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe circuit court of McLean County denied William Gustavson\u2019s petition for modification of custody. We affirm.\nAnne Gustavson (now known as Anne Veselack) and William Gustavson were married May 12, 1984. They have one child, K.A.G. (born August 30, 1984). On January 15, 1988, Anne filed a petition for dissolution of marriage requesting temporary and permanent custody of the minor child. The court granted temporary custody of K.A.G. and exclusive temporary possession of the marital residence to Anne, and ordered William to vacate the marital residence and pay temporary child support. Anne subsequently filed a petition for preliminary injunction, and the court entered an order enjoining William from following, photographing, or telephoning Anne in a harassing manner. On October 25, 1988, the court entered a judgment of dissolution of marriage, reserving other issues, including permanent child custody.\nWilliam filed a pro se motion to vacate dissolution of marriage and a notice of appeal, docketed No. 4 \u2014 88 \u2014 0878. William\u2019s appeal was dismissed by this court for failure to file an appellant\u2019s brief as required by Supreme Court Rules 342 and 343 (134 Ill. 2d Rules 342, 343). (In re Marriage of Gustavson (4th Dist. 1989), No. 4\u201488\u20140878 (order of dismissal).) After a hearing on October 4, 1989, the circuit court entered a written order on October 31 regarding all remaining issues, including an award of permanent custody of the minor child to Anne. William filed a pro se motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal (docketed No. 4\u201489\u20140860). This court dismissed William\u2019s appeal on his motion (In re Marriage of Gustavson (4th Dist. 1989), No. 4\u201489\u20140860 (order of dismissal)), and the trial court denied his motion for reconsideration.\nOn July 19, 1991, William filed a petition for change of custody, which was dismissed by the trial court because it was filed within two years of the October 1989 custody determination and did not meet the conditions of section 610(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 40, par. 610(a)). On August 19 William filed a motion for leave to file petition for change of custody and an affidavit in support of his motion; the court granted William leave to file. On October 3 William filed a petition for change of custody alleging \u201csignificant changes in the circumstances of the parties affecting the best interests of the minor child of the parties which would warrant a change in custody from [Anne] to [William].\u201d He alleged more specifically that (1) Anne \u201chas not provided the child with a proper moral environment,\u201d (2) Anne \u201chas used and continues to use drugs within the home while the minor child is present,\u201d (3) Anne lost her job because \u201cshe obtained cocaine from the hospital pharmacist under false pretenses,\u201d (4) Anne \u201chas been charged criminally for possession of cocaine,\u201d (5) Anne \u201chas threatened suicide,\u201d (6) Anne\u2019s husband uses \u201cexcessive force in disciplining the child,\u201d and (7) Anne \u201chas failed to adequately supervise the child and he has been injured on several occasions.\u201d William also filed a motion to modify child support alleging in part he had no source of income because he was presently unemployed.\nAt the hearing Anne presented evidence that despite the court\u2019s order enjoining William from harassing her, he continued to contact her and send notes to her, and he was uncooperative regarding visitation. Anne testified regarding the suicide attempt. On the evening of October 22, 1989, Anne called William to make arrangements for her to pick up K.A.G. after she finished work at Brokaw Hospital. She testified that \u201che said don\u2019t bother coming to pick him up; we won\u2019t be here, *** you will be lucky to see him in heaven if you even get there.\u201d William testified that he could not remember his exact words, but that he might have said \u201cthe next time you see [K.A.G.] may be in heaven.\u201d Anne had just concluded an extended and emotional custody battle with William, and she felt that \u201cnothing had changed\u201d even though she had custody of K.A.G. She \u201cgave up hope\u201d because she believed William was going to take and conceal K.A.G. from her as he had done in the past. Anne procured liquid cocaine from the hospital pharmacy and took it with the intent of committing suicide; she had never attempted to take her life before. Following her suicide attempt Anne was discharged from her position at Brokaw. Although it was not clear from the testimony at trial, Anne indicated in a previous affidavit that based on this incident at Brokaw she had \u201cplead[ed] guilty to theft under $150, a misdemeanor.\u201d Anne retained her nursing license subject to a consent order with the Illinois Department of Education and Regulation; as a condition of the order, Anne is required to submit to unannounced drug tests, all of which have been negative. She has been employed at Lake Forest Hospital as a staff nurse in cardiopulmonary rehabilitation for two years. She works flex-time, which permits her to vary her working hours around K.A.G.\u2019s school and activity schedule.\nAnne married Paul Veselack in May 1991 and they had a daughter in the spring of 1992. Paul, who is also employed at Lake Forest Hospital, helps take care of the children and has become actively involved in K.A.G.\u2019s sports, music, and outdoor activities. Anne denied William\u2019s allegations that she uses illegal drugs, and stated that she has never known Paul to use excessive force in disciplining the children. Anne testified about two incidents in which K.A.G. had been injured. In the first incident K.A.G. fell off a rocking chair \u201cbecause he was goofing around.\u201d In the second incident K.A.G. burned his finger when he touched Paul\u2019s motorcycle; K.A.G. immediately received first aid for the burn and Paul no longer owns a motorcycle. Anne presented evidence showing the amenities at their house and in their neighborhood, and indicated that K.A.G. participates in community activities. Anne has a close family relationship with relatives who live near her home, including parents and siblings. She presented evidence that K.A.G. has attended religious classes through the Catholic church and that she taught religion to a sixth-grade class at the church. She also testified that K.A.G. had made excellent academic progress, and introduced evidence showing the school district he attends has a high rating.\nAlthough William alleged that Anne used illegal drugs at the house, he admitted that he had \u201cno way of knowing\u201d whether Anne had used illegal drugs since the dissolution of marriage. William also failed to present any evidence to show that Anne failed to adequately supervise K.A.G. or that Paul had used excessive force in disciplining K.A.G. At the hearing significant evidence was presented regarding William\u2019s life-style, which we need not go into on this appeal.\nOn August 24, 1992, the trial court entered an order denying William\u2019s petition for modification of custody. The trial court subsequently denied William\u2019s motion for reconsideration and William filed a timely notice of appeal.\nOn appeal, William contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition for change of custody. The primary focus of the appeal is not whether a modification of custody is necessary to serve K.A.G.\u2019s best interest. Instead William seems intent on using his modification petition as a vehicle to remedy perceived defects in the original award of custody. William complains that Anne\u2019s testimony at the original hearing was perjured; that Anne attempted suicide October 22, 1989 (a matter considered when William's motion to reconsider was denied April 18, 1991); that Anne was convicted of theft of cocaine from the hospital where she worked, in connection with the suicide attempt; and that it was a travesty of justice for the trial court not to have granted the motion for reconsideration in 1991.\nSection 610 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 40, par. 610) governs actions for modifications of child custody judgments. It provides in pertinent part:\n\u201c(b) The court shall not modify a prior custody judgment unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior judgment or that were unknown to the court at the time of entry of the prior judgment, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or his custodian, or in the case of a joint custody arrangement that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or either or both parties having custody, and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 40, par. 610(b).)\nThis section reflects an underlying policy favoring finality of child custody judgments and creating a presumption in favor of the present custody so as to promote stability and continuity in the child\u2019s custodial and environmental relationships. (In re Custody of Sussenbach (1985), 108 Ill. 2d 489, 499, 485 N.E.2d 367, 371; In re Marriage of Fuesting (1992), 228 Ill. App. 3d 339, 344, 591 N.E.2d 960, 963.) The focus of a modification proceeding should be the best interests of the minor child. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 40, par. 610(b); Fuesting, 228 Ill. App. 3d at 344, 591 N.E.2d at 963 (\u201cThe paramount issue in all matters concerning custody of a child is his or her welfare\u201d).) Great deference must be accorded the trial court\u2019s custody determination since the trial court is in a superior position to judge the credibility of the witnesses and determine the best interests of the child. (Sussenbach, 108 Ill. 2d at 499, 485 N.E.2d at 371; In re Marriage of Apperson (1991), 215 Ill. App. 3d 378, 383, 574 N.E.2d 1257, 1261.) The trial court\u2019s determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear abuse of discretion or the decision was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Sussenbach, 108 Ill. 2d at 499, 485 N.E.2d at 371; Apperson, 215 Ill. App. 3d at 383, 574 N.E.2d at 1260.\nAlthough a custodian\u2019s suicide attempt may present concerns about a child\u2019s welfare, a court may consider the fact the suicide attempt was prompted by the wrongful conduct of the noncustodian. After the trial court awarded permanent custody of K.A.G. to Anne, she had difficulties coping with William\u2019s propensity to expand his visitation rights. Anne attempted suicide, but she has since addressed her problems and continues to participate in a support group. Numerous other allegations about Anne\u2019s behavior were unsubstantiated. The record is devoid of evidence that it would be in the child\u2019s best interest to transfer custody to William. Given the totality of the circumstances, we are not persuaded by William\u2019s argument that the trial court abused its discretion.\nIt is difficult to believe that William\u2019s petition for modification, this appeal, and much of the other litigation initiated by William have been with the best interests of the child in mind. Instead it appears that William is interested in pursuing his personal vendetta with Anne, and is indifferent to any resulting harm to K.A.G. In that connection we quote the following from William\u2019s brief:\n\u201cBecause Judge Dearborn believed her perjured testimony and based his decisions upon this perjured testimony, about both the drug usage and the illicit relationship with Paul Veselack during the marriage, Judge Dearborn\u2019s decisions were more than an abuse of discretion; they were injustice and should be reversed with custody of the minor child to be placed with Appellant on a term of years equal but not limited to the length Mrs. Gustavson Veselack has enjoyed this custody gained illegally and deceptively by means of her perjury. Then a new, fair hearing with unperjured testimony should be held.\u201d\nThis argument proceeds as if all that were involved here were a contest between William and Anne, with K.A.G. just a prize to be won. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever Anne\u2019s deficiencies might be, the trial court\u2019s original order awarding her custody became final when William did not pursue that appeal. Even assuming Anne should not initially have been awarded custody, custody should not now be changed unless K.A.G.\u2019s best interests require it. It is in K.A.G.\u2019s best interests that he not be bounced back and forth from one parent to another. William has not come close to establishing by clear and convincing evidence, on the basis of facts which have arisen since the denial of his motion to reconsider, that modification \u201cis necessary to serve the best interest of the child.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 40, par. 610(b).\nAccordingly, we affirm the decision of the circuit court of McLean County denying William\u2019s petition for change of custody.\nAffirmed.\nMcCULLOUGH and GREEN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE COOK" } ], "attorneys": [ "William D. Gustavson, of Bloomington, appellant pro se.", "Alan I. Weintraub, of Thomson & Weintraub, of Bloomington, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re MARRIAGE OF ANNE M. GUSTAVSON, n/k/a Anne M. Veselack, Petitioner-Appellee and WILLIAM D. GUSTAVSON, Respondent-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201492\u20140964\nOpinion filed August 5, 1993.\nWilliam D. Gustavson, of Bloomington, appellant pro se.\nAlan I. Weintraub, of Thomson & Weintraub, of Bloomington, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0797-01", "first_page_order": 815, "last_page_order": 820 }