{ "id": 3239462, "name": "In re MARRIAGE OF RODGER W. FARRIS et al.-(RODGER W. FARRIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. DEBORAH L. FARRIS, Respondent-Appellant.)", "name_abbreviation": "Farris v. Farris", "decision_date": "1979-03-30", "docket_number": "No. 15298", "first_page": "1042", "last_page": "1046", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "69 Ill. App. 3d 1042" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "381 N.E.2d 70", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 Ill. App. 3d 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3332418 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/64/0465-01" ] }, { "cite": "330 N.E.2d 244", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 Ill. App. 3d 214", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2497164 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/29/0214-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 N.E.2d 399", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 Ill. App. 3d 529", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5305153 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/35/0529-01" ] }, { "cite": "335 N.E.2d 581", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ill. App. 3d 1041", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2711217 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/31/1041-01" ] }, { "cite": "382 N.E.2d 12", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 Ill. App. 3d 932", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3332825 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/64/0932-01" ] }, { "cite": "383 N.E.2d 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 Ill. App. 3d 965", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3326618 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/65/0965-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 489, "char_count": 8462, "ocr_confidence": 0.917, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.166898356141177e-07, "percentile": 0.770569056342667 }, "sha256": "d69398134ee4c4f3536db140924601f9f37677e3bc88f5e90014ff0a487814ee", "simhash": "1:2762ae84a7fdfaaf", "word_count": 1368 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:51:15.332188+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re MARRIAGE OF RODGER W. FARRIS et al.\u2014(RODGER W. FARRIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. DEBORAH L. FARRIS, Respondent-Appellant.)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE GREEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal is brought by respondent, Deborah L. Farris, from the circuit court of Macon County\u2019s granting of a change of custody of her minor daughters, Ginger and Tammy, ages five and four, to their father, Rodger W. Farris, pursuant to his petition of August 22,1978. Respondent had originally been awarded the custody of the girls under a divorce decree of December 1, 1976.\nOn review, respondent contends that section 610(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 40, par. 610(a)) prescribes the standard which must be reached before a modification of custody may be made within 2 years of an original custody judgment and that the trial court failed to apply that standard in the instant case. Further, respondent maintains that, even assuming the standards for modification of custody as set forth in section 610(b) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 40, par. 610(b)) to be applicable, the court\u2019s decision to change custody was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.\nSection 610(a) provides:\n\u201c(a) No motion to modify a custody judgment may be made earlier than 2 years after its date, unless the court permits it to be made on the basis of affidavits that there is reason to believe the child\u2019s present environment may endanger seriously his physical, mental, moral or emotional health.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 40, par. 610(a).)\nThat provision does not set forth the standard which must be reached before a change of custody may be made but rather requires the filing of affidavits in instances where custody modification is sought within 2 years of an original custody determination. In the instant case, petitioner\u2019s own affidavit accompanied his August 22, 1978, petition and stated that since the divorce, respondent had, inter alia, (1) repeatedly kept the children in the company of several different men, (2) wandered from place to place without providing the children with a stable home environment, and (3) maintained a habit of leaving the children with friends or relatives for long periods of time. The affidavit also stated that respondent is now employed during hours not conducive to properly raising children. Although the affidavit lacked desirable specificity, it nonetheless creates reason to believe the children\u2019s present environment may endanger seriously their physical, mental, moral, or emotional health (Boggs v. Boggs (1978), 65 Ill. App. 3d 965, 383 N.E.2d 9). And failure to comply more closely with the dictates of section 610(a) did not amount to reversible error.\nSection 610(b) of the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act provides:\n\u201c(b) The court shall not modify a prior custody judgment unless it finds, 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 and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child. In applying these standards the court shall retain the custodian appointed pursuant to the prior judgment unless:\n(1) the custodian agrees to the modification;\n(2) the child has been integrated into the family of the petitioner with consent of the custodian; or\n(3) the child\u2019s present environment endangers seriously his physical, mental, moral or emotional health and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by its advantages to him.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 40, par. 610(b).\nThe evidence indicated that since the parties\u2019 divorce, respondent had changed residences a number of times, attended school full-time for 3 months, and worked various jobs, sometimes concurrently and often during the late night and into the early morning hours. Other evidence indicated that respondent devoted very little time to her children, even when not working, and that often her whereabouts were unknown to those placed in charge of taking care of the girls. Respondent gave testimony disputing these points.\nPetitioner also points to evidence of respondent\u2019s sexual relationships with various men while having custody of the children in support of the trial court\u2019s ruling. However, it is well recognized that where no showing is made of detriment resulting to the children, evidence of a parent\u2019s extramarital relationship with another is insufficient upon which to base a change of custody. Jarrett v. Jarrett (1978), 64 Ill. App. 3d 932, 382 N.E.2d 12; Christensen v. Christensen (1975), 31 Ill. App. 3d 1041, 335 N.E.2d 581.\nThe children have resided with petitioner and his present wife since June 1978. Ginger attends a school in that locale. Uncontradicted testimony established that Ginger is a slow learner and is behind her schoolmates and that petitioner and his wife work with her daily. Disputed testimony was received as to whether respondent had informed petitioner of Ginger\u2019s difficulty although it is undisputed that respondent had knowledge thereof prior to the girls\u2019 residing with petitioner.\nThe evidence was also in dispute as to respondent\u2019s contact with the girls since their departure to live with their father. The trier of fact could have concluded that respondent had not seen them since that time and had not made a serious effort to contact them prior to the initiation of the instant proceeding.\nRespondent asserts that by means of her status as the mother of children of tender years, a presumption exists in her favor as to custody. That presumption, however, is no longer recognized by this court. Drake v. Hohimer (1976), 35 Ill. App. 3d 529, 341 N.E.2d 399; Pratt v. Pratt (1975), 29 Ill. App. 3d 214, 330 N.E.2d 244.\nIn Rippon v. Rippon (1978), 64 Ill. App. 3d 465, 381 N.E.2d 70, the reviewing court upheld the trial court\u2019s denial of a modification of custody, finding that (1) respondent had acted responsibly toward the children, (2) the housing problems she encountered were largely beyond her control and her numerous changes of residence were attempts to improve her living conditions, and (3) there was no showing that her extramarital sexual relations affected the relationship between herself and her children. In Jarrett, the reviewing court reversed a custody modification where the sole evidence of a change of circumstances was that respondent and her children resided with an unmarried man and no evidence supported the conclusion that the children\u2019s moral well-being was endangered thereby.\nHere, the evidence failed to show that prior to the parties\u2019 divorce, respondent\u2019s lifestyle detracted significantly from the amount of time which she could devote to the children. Similarly, no showing was made that such a situation was contemplated by the court at the time of the original custody award. The evidence, as a whole, supported the trial court\u2019s finding that a change in the circumstances of the children\u2019s custodian had occurred.\nAmple evidence was also presented that while living with petitioner and his wife, the children were under constant supervision, appeared happy, and were better behaved than previously. Other evidence indicated that Ginger\u2019s schoolwork improved during this time. Such would support the court\u2019s finding that modification is necessary to serve the children\u2019s best interests.\nThe evidence of respondent\u2019s inability to devote sufficient time to the children and her lack of concern for their well-being together with the evidence of the advantages to the children of living with their father, support the trial court\u2019s conclusions, implicit in its ruling, that the children\u2019s present environment endangers seriously their physical, mental, moral, or emotional health and that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by its advantages to them.\nThe record presented a close question to the trial court as to whether custody should have been modified. That court\u2019s decision was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nREARDON, P. J., and MILLS, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE GREEN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Sharon L. Sigwerth, of Barrett, Morris & Broom, of Carbondale, for appellant.", "Hull, Campbell, Robinson & Gibson, of Decatur (Michael I. Campbell, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re MARRIAGE OF RODGER W. FARRIS et al.\u2014(RODGER W. FARRIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. DEBORAH L. FARRIS, Respondent-Appellant.)\nFourth District\nNo. 15298\nOpinion filed March 30, 1979.\nSharon L. Sigwerth, of Barrett, Morris & Broom, of Carbondale, for appellant.\nHull, Campbell, Robinson & Gibson, of Decatur (Michael I. Campbell, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "1042-01", "first_page_order": 1064, "last_page_order": 1068 }