{ "id": 2921217, "name": "In re CUSTODY OF KRISTINA PFAFF (Pamela Pfaff, n/k/a Pamela Steep, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Stephen Pfaff, Respondent-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "Pfaff v. Pfaff", "decision_date": "1993-09-03", "docket_number": "No. 3-92-0970", "first_page": "265", "last_page": "268", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "250 Ill. App. 3d 265" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "475 N.E.2d 1107", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 Ill. App. 3d 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3437865 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/131/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "511 N.E.2d 945", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 Ill. App. 3d 798", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3579474 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/158/0798-01" ] }, { "cite": "538 N.E.2d 1175", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Ill. App. 3d 37", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2628187 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/183/0037-01" ] }, { "cite": "507 N.E.2d 1298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 Ill. App. 3d 181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3466002 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/155/0181-01" ] }, { "cite": "484 N.E.2d 311", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 Ill. App. 3d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3639411 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/137/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "345 N.E.2d 493", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5426498 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/63/0128-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 377, "char_count": 5824, "ocr_confidence": 0.789, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.0857038383318873 }, "sha256": "ff8842cf0af3573b51bc791b3ecb521f877468d657e18f3c13a06daed70b9135", "simhash": "1:ae299907104c07b4", "word_count": 981 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:41:36.340475+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re CUSTODY OF KRISTINA PFAFF (Pamela Pfaff, n/k/a Pamela Steep, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Stephen Pfaff, Respondent-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE BRESLIN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe respondent, Stephen Pfaff, appeals from a judgment of the trial court which terminated a joint custody arrangement and awarded sole custody to the petitioner, Pamela (Pfaff) Steep. We affirm.\nWe initially note that an appellee\u2019s brief was not filed in this case. However, since the record is simple and the issue can be easily decided without an appellee\u2019s brief, we shall address the issue on the merits. First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp. (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 128, 345 N.E.2d 493.\nThe record shows that the parties\u2019 daughter, Kristina, was born on November 24, 1986. The parties\u2019 marriage was dissolved on May 27, 1988. Pursuant to the dissolution order, the parties were awarded joint custody of Kristina, and Pamela was named the custodial parent.\nOn May 12, 1992, Pamela filed a petition seeking sole custody of Kristina. She alleged that Stephen had not cooperated with her regarding custody arrangements and that they could no longer consult each other concerning Kristina\u2019s best interests.\nAt a hearing on the petition, Pamela testified that she and Stephen disagreed about which days of the week Stephen would have custody of Kristina. She also said there were disagreements over Stephen\u2019s summer vacation time with Kristina as well as with whom Kristina would be on Christmas day. Lastly, Pamela testified that they argued over which dentist Kristina would go to and which kindergarten she would attend.\nAt the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge awarded sole custody to Pamela. In making its ruling, the court found that it was in Kristina\u2019s best interest to terminate the joint custody order. The judge stated as follows:\n\u201cThe problem is when [the parties] can\u2019t agree somebody has to make the decision and that person should be the custodial parent.\n* * *\n*** [I]t is just obvious to me that these folks don\u2019t communicate, period.\n* * *\nI am really not too much concerned about these [two] people. I am concerned about Kristina. When they argue, when they can\u2019t agree on which dentist she should go to, which school she should go to, what she can do on every step of the way, the only one that suffers is the child.\u201d\nThese comments were not included in the judge\u2019s written order.\nOn appeal, Stephen argues that the trial judge failed to make a specific finding as required by section 610(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 40, par. 610(b)).\nSection 610 of the Act provides that if two years have elapsed following a custody judgment, a court shall not modify the custody order unless it finds clear and convincing evidence that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or custodian and that modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 40, pars. 610(a), (b).) The court\u2019s decision must be based upon facts arising since the judgment or upon facts unknown at the time of the judgment. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 40, par. 610(b).) The Act requires the court to make specific findings to support a change in a prior custody order. (Vollmer v. Mattox (1985), 137 Ill. App. 3d 1, 484 N.E.2d 311; In re Marriage of Oliver (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 181, 507 N.E.2d 1298.) However, specific findings need not be contained in the written order when they are mentioned orally by the judge at the time he makes his decision. In re Marriage of Cripe (1989), 183 Ill. App. 3d 37, 538 N.E.2d 1175.\nIn the instant case, the trial judge specifically found that after the marriage had been dissolved, the parties were unable to agree on important aspects of Kristina\u2019s care. The judge further found that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate the joint custody order. Based on those statements, we hold that the trial court made findings that were specific enough to satisfy section 610(b), although we note that the better procedure is to reduce those findings to a written order. Regardless, the findings were made and will be upheld by this court.\nStephen also argues on appeal that the trial court\u2019s custody modification was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, he contends that Pamela should not have been rewarded for her lack of cooperation by gaining sole custody of Kristina.\nWe note that in cases involving a transfer of custody, there is a legislative presumption favoring retention of the current custodian in order to promote stability and continuity in the child\u2019s environment. (In re Marriage of Eldert (1987), 158 Ill. App. 3d 798, 511 N.E.2d 945.) A change in custody will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court\u2019s decision was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence or constituted an abuse of discretion. In re Custody of Dykhuis (1985), 131 Ill. App. 3d 371, 475 N.E.2d 1107.\nHere, the record shows that the parties were unable to agree on important aspects of Kristina\u2019s care. It does not appear that either party was solely to blame for the disagreements. In these circumstances, the presumption in favor of the current custodian provides an adequate basis for the trial court\u2019s decision. This is not a \u201creward\u201d to Pamela but a recognition of the importance of stability in Kristina\u2019s life. We therefore find that the trial judge\u2019s award of sole custody to Pamela was not against the manifest weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion.\nThe decision of the circuit court of Grundy County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMcCUSKEY, P.J., and STOUDER, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE BRESLIN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Chris D. Rouskey, of Rouskey & Kucinic, of Joliet, for appellant.", "No brief filed for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re CUSTODY OF KRISTINA PFAFF (Pamela Pfaff, n/k/a Pamela Steep, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Stephen Pfaff, Respondent-Appellant).\nThird District\nNo. 3-92-0970\nOpinion filed September 3, 1993.\nChris D. Rouskey, of Rouskey & Kucinic, of Joliet, for appellant.\nNo brief filed for appellee." }, "file_name": "0265-01", "first_page_order": 283, "last_page_order": 286 }