FOURTH DIVISION 

 May 18, 2006 

Nos. 1-05-2858 and 1-05-2873 (Cons.) 

In re MARRIAGE OF ) 

VIRGINIA HORGAN, f/k/a ) Appeal from 

Virginia Romans, ) the Circuit Court 

) of Cook County. 

Petitioner-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

) 

v. ) 

 ) Honorable 

VINCENT ROMANS, ) Mark Joseph Lopez, 

 

 

 

 ) 

Judge 

Presid

ing. 

Respo

ndentAppell

ant. 

) 

 

 

 

 

 

 PRESIDING JUSTICE QUINN delivered the opinion of the 

court: 
Respondent Vincent Romans petitioned this court for leave to appeal 

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2) (166 Ill. 2d R. 306(a)(2)), from an 

order of the circuit court declining jurisdiction over the issues regarding visitation 

between the parties and their minor child, and electing to allow the State of New 

York to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the inconvenient forum provision of the 

Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (750 ILCS 

36/207)(West 2004)). We granted respondent's petition and, on appeal, 

respondent contends that: (1) the State of Illinois must retain jurisdiction over 

these issues pursuant to the "Exclusive, Continuing Jurisdiction" provision of the 

UCCJEA (750 ILCS 36/202 (West 2004)); (2) the removal and visitation order, 

agreed upon by the parties, contained a forum-selection clause, requiring that 

jurisdiction remain with the State of Illinois; and (3) the circuit court improperly 

applied a "best interests of the child" standard in reaching its decision. For the 

reasons stated, we affirm the order of the circuit court. 

I. BACKGROUND 

The parties were married on October 15, 1991, and their only minor child, 

Katherine, was born on April 13, 1994. The parties were divorced on May 3, 

1999, by entry of a bifurcated judgment of dissolution of marriage, which granted 

sole custody of the child to petitioner. On June 28, 2000, the circuit court entered 

a supplement to the bifurcated judgment for dissolution of marriage, which 

awarded respondent parenting time on alternate weekends, every Wednesday 

evening, and alternate holidays. 
1-05-2858 and 1-05-2873 (Cons.) 

-3-

On July 16, 2001, the circuit court entered an agreed removal order, which 

granted petitioner leave to permanently remove the child from Illinois to New 

York. On January 29, 2003, the court entered a removal and visitation order, 

which provided visitation time for respondent with the child in both New York and 

Chicago. According to this order, respondent was to have parenting time on one 

weekend per month in Chicago, one weekend per month in New York, alternate 

holiday visitation, and extended summer vacation. 

According to petitioner, in 2004, the child began exhibiting emotional 

problems with respect to her visitation arrangement with respondent. After one 

particularly serious instance in December 2004, in which petitioner alleges that 

she had to physically compel the child to get ready for her flight to Chicago after 

the child screamed, cried, and refused to leave her bed, petitioner took the child 

to see Laura DeNofio, a clinical social worker in New York. The child saw Ms. 

DeNofio three more times between December 2004 and February 2005. 

On February 17, 2005, petitioner filed a motion to decline jurisdiction and 

transfer adjudication of visitation issues to the State of New York (motion to 

transfer). In addition to highlighting the child=s emotional issues, petitioner 

alleged that Illinois was an inconvenient forum in which to determine the visitation 

issues and that the circuit court should elect to decline jurisdiction over these 

issues pursuant to the inconvenient forum provision of the UCCJEA (750 ILCS 

36/207(West 2004)). 

On February 18, 2005, after the child became upset upon being told she 

had to go to Chicago to visit respondent, Ms. DeNofio sent the child to the 
1-05-2858 and 1-05-2873 (Cons.) 

-4-

emergency room of a hospital in New York. After the child was released, Ms. 

DeNofio contacted respondent to request that he schedule a therapy session 

with herself and the child in New York so that they could attempt to resolve the 

child=s issues. On February 22, 2005, respondent filed an emergency petition for 

an evaluation, arguing that, rather than he being required to travel to New York, 

the child should be required to travel to Chicago for any evaluation. The circuit 

court agreed, temporarily abated respondent=s visitation with the child, and 

appointed Dr. Louis Kraus to perform the evaluation in Chicago. 

On June 5, 2005, respondent filed a petition for visitation to resume. The 

petition was based on Dr. Kraus=s report, which stated that there was no reason 

that parenting time should not occur between respondent and the child. The 

petition was granted by the circuit court, which ordered that respondent be 

allowed his regularly scheduled parenting time during the child=s summer 

vacation. 

On July 20, 2005, respondent filed an answer to petitioner=s motion to 

transfer, arguing that the State of Illinois was the appropriate forum, and alleging 

that petitioner was actively interfering with his visitation with the child and not 

properly discouraging the child=s emotional outbursts. The circuit court heard 

arguments on the motion on August 3, 2005, and rendered its decision on August 

12, 2005. The court found that the balance of factors enumerated in the 

inconvenient forum provision of the UCCJEA weighed in favor of New York as a 

more appropriate forum for determining the visitation issues. After the circuit 

court denied respondent=s motion to stay the court=s August 12 order, respondent 
1-05-2858 and 1-05-2873 (Cons.) 

-5-

filed a petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2) 

(166 Ill. 2d R. 306(a)(2)). On September 9, 2005, we granted respondent's 

petition for leave to appeal. 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. The UCCJEA and the UCCJA 

As an initial matter, we note that the cases relied upon by both parties, 

and indeed all of the present cases involving inconvenient forum determinations 

in this area, were decided under the predecessor to the UCCJEA, the Uniform 

Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) (750 ILCS 35/1 et seq.)(West 1996)), 

which was repealed by operation of the UCCJEA on January 1, 2004. 

The inconvenient forum provision under the now-repealed UCCJA 

provided: 

"(a) A court which has jurisdiction under 

this Act to make an initial or modification judgment may decline to exercise 

its jurisdiction any time before making a judgment if it finds that it is an 

inconvenient forum to make a custody determination under the 

circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more 

appropriate forum. 

*** 

"(c) In determining if it is an inconvenient 
1-05-2858 and 1-05-2873 (Cons.) 

-6-

forum, the court shall consider if it is in the interest of the child that 

another state assume jurisdiction. For this purpose it may take into 

account the following factors, among others: 

(1) if another state is or recently was the 

child=s home state; 

(2) if another state has a closer connection 

with the child and his family or with the child and one or more of the 

contestants; 

 (3) if substantial evidence concerning the 

child=s present or future care, protection, training, and personal 

relationships is more readily available in another state; 

 (4) if the parties have agreed on another 

forum which is no less appropriate; and 

 (5) if the exercise of jurisdiction by a 

court of this State would contravene any of the purposes stated in 

Section 2 of this Act." 750 ILCS 35/8(a) (West 1996) (repealed by Pub. 

Act. 93-108 '404, eff. January 1, 2004). 

The UCCJEA inconvenient forum provision, effective January 1, 2004, 

abrogated the foregoing provision in the UCCJA. Section 207 of the UCCJEA 

provides: 

"(a) A court of this State which has 

jurisdiction under this Act to make a child- 
1-05-2858 and 1-05-2873 (Cons.) 

-7-

custody determination may decline to exercise 

its jurisdiction at any time if it determines 

that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a 

court of another state 

is a more appropriate forum. The issue of 

inconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of 

a party, the court=s own motion, or request of 

another court. 

(b) Before determining whether it is an 

inconvenient forum, a court of this State shall consider whether it is 

appropriate for a court of 

another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall 

allow the parties to 

submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including: 

(1) whether domestic violence 

has occurred and is likely to continue 

in the future and which state could best 

protect the parties and the child; 

(2) the length of time the child 

has resided outside this State; 

(3) the distance between the court 

in this State and the court in the state 

that would assume jurisdiction; 
1-05-2858 and 1-05-2873 (Cons.) 

-8-

(4) the relative financial circumstances 

of the parties; 

(5) any agreement of the parties as to 

which state should assume jurisdiction; 

(6) the nature and location of the 

evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including 

testimony of the child; 

(7) the ability of the court of each 

state to decide the issue expeditiously and 

the procedures necessary to present the 

evidence; and 

(8) the familiarity of the court of 

each state with the facts and issues in 

the pending litigation." 750 ILCS 36/207 

(West 2004). 

B. Exclusive, Continuing Jurisdiction 

As a threshold matter, respondent argues, and petitioner agrees, that 

Illinois has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 

section 202 of the UCCJEA.1

 However this assertion does not resolve the issue 

 

1

 This section of the UCCJEA states: 

"Exclusive, Continuing Jurisdiction. (a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 204, a 
1-05-2858 and 1-05-2873 (Cons.) 

-9-

of whether Illinois is an inconvenient forum. Section 207(a) of the UCCJEA 

allows any "court of this State which has jurisdiction" to decline to exercise that 

jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of 

another state is a more appropriate forum. (Emphasis added.) 750 ILCS 

36/207(a)(West 2004). Thus, even assuming the circuit court has exclusive and 

continuing jurisdiction over the visitation issue in this case, it may nonetheless 

decline to exercise that jurisdiction upon a finding that it is an inconvenient forum 

under section 207 of the UCCJEA. 

C. Forum Selection Clause and Inconvenient Forum Determination 

 court of this State which has made a child-custody determination consistent with Section 201 

or 203 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until: 

(1) a court of this State determines that neither 

the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as 

a parent do not have a significant connection with this 

State and that substantial evidence is no longer available 

in this State concerning the child's care, protection, 

training, and personal relationships; or(2) a court of this State or a court of another 

state determines that the child, the child's parents, and 

any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in 

this State.(b) A court of this State which has made a child-custody 

determination and does not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under this 

Section may modify that determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an 

initial determination under Section 201." 750 ILCS 36/202 (West 2004).
1-05-2858 and 1-05-2873 (Cons.) 

-10-

Respondent next argues that the removal and visitation order contained a 

binding forum-selection clause that precludes judicial determination of the 

appropriate forum for the underlying visitation issues in this case. To support this 

argument, respondent relies primarily on In re Marriage of Hilliard, 178 Ill. App. 

3d 620 (1989), a case decided under the UCCJA. The appellate court in Hilliard

applied the five-factor balancing test articulated in the inconvenient forum 

provision of the UCCJA, and, finding the fourth factor, an agreement of the 

parties, to be overriding, upheld the circuit court=s denial of the petitioner=s motion 

to transfer. Hilliard, 178 Ill. App. 3d at 623. 

Respondent would have us apply the holding in Hilliard to find that, any 

time the parties have agreed to a forum for subsequent proceedings, such a 

forum selection should trump the other factors to be balanced by the circuit court 

pursuant to the UCCJEA inconvenient forum provision. To do so would 

contradict the statutory language of section 207. On its face, section 207 

bestows on the trial court the discretion to receive all the relevant information, 

examine the totality of the circumstances, and balance the enumerated factors to 

arrive at a determination of whether another forum would be more convenient to 

the parties. The fifth factor in section 207 specifically allows the circuit court to 

consider "any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume 

jurisdiction" alongside and with equal importance as the other seven factors. 

(Emphasis added.) 750 ILCS 36/207(b)(5) (West 2004). 

Because a finding of inconvenient forum is the product of an exercise of 

the circuit court=s discretion, it will be affirmed unless the reviewing court finds an 
1-05-2858 and 1-05-2873 (Cons.) 

-11-

abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Blanchard, 305 Ill. App. 3d 348, 353 

(1999). The circuit court in this case outlined in the order of August 12, 2005, its 

findings with respect to each of the eight enumerated factors in section 207 of the 

UCCJEA. The order stated that no domestic violence has occurred between the 

parties; the child has resided in New York in excess of four years; there is a great 

distance between New York and Chicago; both parties have the necessary 

means to finance litigation in either forum; the parties agreed that Illinois would 

be considered the child=s home state; evidence relevant to the proceeding 

existed in both Illinois and New York; New York would be better situated to 

decide the issues expeditiously because allowing a New York court to address 

these issues would present the least amount of disruption to the child=s daily life, 

her clinical social worker is in New York, and, should the court need to appoint a 

representative for the child, it would be best if that representative was a resident 

of New York; and the State of Illinois currently has jurisdiction and more 

familiarity with the pending issues. The record shows that the circuit court 

balanced the requisite factors and determined that Illinois was an inconvenient 

forum and that New York was a more appropriate forum. 

Respondent argues that the circuit court impermissibly applied a "best 

interests of the child" standard in determining whether Illinois is an inconvenient 

forum. However, respondent's assertion is not reflected in the circuit court=s 

order. The court followed the mandate of section 207 of the UCCJEA, analyzing 

the entire matrix of enumerated factors and attaching varying importance to each 

as is within the court's discretion. The mere fact that the circuit court gave 
1-05-2858 and 1-05-2873 (Cons.) 

-12-

greater weight to some of the factors, that, in addition to bearing on the 

convenience of the forum, may also as an ancillary matter bear on the best 

interests of the child, does not constitute an abuse of discretion in this case. We 

further note that the best 

interests of the child are always paramount in such proceedings. See 

Fisher v. Waldrop, No. 100443, slip op. at 

12 (April 20, 2006). 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the above reasons, we affirm the order of the 

circuit court declining to exercise jurisdiction and allowing the State of New York 

to exercise jurisdiction over the issue of visitation. 

Affirmed. 

CAMPBELL and GREIMAN, JJ., concur.