1 The f ath er ’s n oti ce of appe al sp el l ed h i s f i rs t n am e a s “ A l i x i o.”The f

ath er ’s appe l l ate bri ef s pelle d hi s f

irst na me as “A le xio.” FIRST DIVI SION NOVEMBER 13, 2007

No. 1-06- 3304 In Re MARR IAGE OF ) Appeal from the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of DHEY A BDUL SAHEB, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) Petitioner-A

ppelle e, )

) Nos. 05 D 1733, 05 D 5633 ) & 05 CH 22625 and ) ) ALIXIO K

HA ZA L, ) Ho no r ab le ) Jea nne R. Cleveland Ber nst ein, Re sp on den

t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. JU STI CERO BE RTE. G OR DO N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Responden

t Ali xio Khazal 1 and peti

tion er Dh ey Ab dul Sahebare the f

athe r and m other,
re spe ct ively, of six-yea r- old Basma Ali Khaza l. The fat her app eals fro m the mo dified joint parentin g order entered by the ci

rcuit court o f Cook County on October 12, 2006, whi ch was in corpo rated into the judgm ent for di ssolution of m

arriage en tered on t he sam

e day . The fa

ther appeal s f rom the order only

to the extent that it grants visi tation to petitioner i

n the Un ited A rab Em i rates w here sh e res i des , i

nstead of i n Il l i noi s wh ere re spon

den t and the m i nor ch i l d res i de. Fo rt he r ea so ns s t at ed be lo w, we affir m.No. 1-06- 3304

2 The j udgme

nt for di ssolution of m

arriage, dated October 12, 2006, stat ed that the parties
were ma rried on F ebruary

20, 2000. However at t he October 12 heari ng, the m ot her testif

ie d that they were ma rried on A

ugust 17, 2000, and the trial court so found, orall

y on the record. 2 BACK GROUND Th e f ather, the n 3 4 y ea rs ol d, a nd the mothe r, then 24 y ea rs ol d, w ere

marr i ed on February 20, 2000, 2 in the U nited Arab E mirat es ( UAE ), wher e t he marr iage w as r egist er ed. One ch ild w as bo rn d ur ing t he mar r iag e, na mely a da ug ht er , Ba sma Ali Kha za l, o n Ju ne 20 , 20 01 , in Ch i cago, I l l i noi s. On May

20, 200 5, th

e m othe r f i l ed a p eti ti on i n C hi cago f or diss ol ution of
marriage, w

hi ch clai med that the p arti es h

ad b een l i vi ng s epara te and apa

rt si nc e Novem

ber 2004
. Dr. Joh n M . Pal en , wh

o has a doc torate

i n s oci al work , wa s a

ppoi nte d by the cou rt on June 9, 200 5, t o e valuat e t he pa rt ies and t he minor child and mad e t he fo llowing findings in a report dated Decemb er 12, 2005. The parties spen t half their m arried l if e liv in g apart from each
o t he r . Fr o m t he da t e o f t he ir ma rr iag e u nt il t he mo t he r‘s r et ur n fr o m t he UA E t o Ch ica go in May 20 05, t he pa rt ies had spe nt a t ot al of 2 1⁄2 yea rs a way fro m each o t her , in o rd er for t he mot her t o finish her medical scho ol st udies in the U AE. Fro m the t ime of t he child’s bir t h in June 2001 u nti l she return

ed wi th her m other i n M ay 2005, th e ch i l d spe nt two of h

er the n f our years away f rom h er f athe r. Dr . Pa l en sta ted i n h i s rep ort: “Each pare nt’s version o f the marriage, de scription o f Al ex’s relationshi

p with B asm

a, and recoll

ection of the c ircum

stancesNo. 1-06- 3304

3 le adi ng to Dhey ’s return f

rom the Uni

ted Arab Em

irates are pol ar opposites of the other. It is not po ssi ble to defin

iti vel y s ort out fact f rom f i cti on.” Dr. Pal en f ound th at the p arti es d

i sag reed a bout the ci rcum stan ces of th e m other’ s return t o C hicago . I t is undisp ut ed t hat mot her and c hild left for t he UAE in Dece mber 2 004 wit h t he fat her ’s co nsent so t hat t he mot her co uld p re par e fo r a Unit ed S t at es med ical licensing exam and that t he f ather vi si ted the UAE in

both January

and March

2005. The fa

ther clai me d to Dr. Palen t hat t he mot her ar rived in the U AE in De cember 200 4 wit h no int ent of r et ur ning and t hat she pushed b ack the date of her m edi cal exam in order t o pro long h

er stay i ndef in itel y. The mother de nie d t o Dr . Pa lenan y pla n t o de pr ive t he fat he ro f ac ce ss t o t he ir d au gh t er an d d id r et ur n in May 2005. Dr . P alen’s r epo rt listed do cument s re viewed by him , w hich included : an o rd er issued by
a co ur t in the U AE o n Mar ch 17 , 2 005 , a t t he fat her ’s r equ est t o p re vent t he child fro m tr aveling unt il f ur t her not ice; and a ca ncellat ion o f the t ra vel ban, dat ed M ay 16, 200 5. The fat her so ught t he t ra vel ban o ut of a fear t hat t he mot her wo uld t ra vel to Ir aq t o live wit h a co usin t her e. The
mo t he rad mit t ed t ha t she o bt ain ed visa s in M ar ch 20 05 t o t r av el t o I r aq . Aft er t he cir cu it co ur t in Coo k C oun

ty i ss ue d a n ord er on Ma y 2, 2 00 5, r

eq ui ri n g th e m oth er ’s an d ch i l d’ s retu

rn to Ch i cago pri or to May 25, 200 5, the

f athe r appa ren tly sough t cancel l ati on of the U AE trav el ba n. Dr . P alen re co mmended in his re po rt t hat t he mot her have p rimary re sident ial cust od y and that t he paren

ts share legal

custody pursuant to a modif ie d joi nt custody order, which

allocated
medi cal deci sions to the

mother an

d educational

deci sions to the

f athe r.No. 1-06- 3304

4

Pr io rt o t he co ur t he ar ing o n Ju ne 26 , 20 06 , t he pa r t ies ind ica t ed t he ir in t en t t o r es ide in dif f ere nt c oun tri es , wi th th e f ather res i di

ng i n I l l i noi s a nd the mothe r re si di ng i n th e U AE. Pr i or t o t he hea ring, t he pa rt ies ag re ed t o mo st of t he t er ms co nt ained in t he su bseq uent ly-issued joint parentin g order, namel

y, that they

would sh are joi nt lega l c ustody, that t he ch

il d would resi

de pr imarily wit h t he fat her in Chicago , t hat t he fat her wo uld have re sident ial cust od y and t hat t he mother wou ld have vi

sitat ion. Ho wever, the pa rt ies could not agree on whet her t he mother ’s visi tation would take p l ace

i n Il l i noi s or i n the UA E. On Apr il 11, 2 006 , t he fat her fil ed a mot ion t o r equ ire t he gu ar dian ad litem to i n v esti ga te iss ue s “r ela t ing t o t he Ha gu e C o nve nt io n. ” A t a p r et r ial c o nfe r en ce o n Ju ne 26 , 20 06 , wit h a ll
co unse l pre sent , Micha el Zaslavs ky, t he gu ar dian ad litem, recom mended that the tri

al court per mit visitat ion in t he UAE even t hou gh t he UAE was not a pa rt y to t he Ha gue Co nvent ion and that the court set a c ash

bon d to guaran

tee the chi l d’s return . At a h eari ng on Jun e 26, 2 006, b oth pare

nts tes tif i ed. Th e m other ag reed to pa y ai rf are f or b i an n ual v i si ts b y th e ch i l d to th

e U AE w i th an ac com pa n y i n g adul t an d to p ost a b on d to secure the chi

ld’ s return. The mother adm itted that she had obtai

ned v is as i n March 2005 to travel with the c hi ld to Iraq and that she h

ad obj ected in

early 2005 to the father returni ng to Chi cago wit hou t her and w ith t he child. The mot her t est ifi ed t hat she w as a Cana dian cit izen in the process of becom

in g a Uni ted St ates citi

zen, an d in tended to t ake a Uni

ted St ates medi

cal licensing exam. The mot her t est ifi ed t hat t he child wo uld o nly be eli gible for a visa issu ed by t he UA E whi ch perm i tted the chi

l d to stay a m axi m um of 6 0 day

s i n the UA E. The m ot her testif

ie d that she wanted paren ting ti me in the UAE i

nstead of the Un

itedNo. 1-06- 3304

5

Stat es for the following reasons:

“First of a ll, I do n’t have a ny fami ly here, any friends, I d on’ t have car, I don’t have i

ncom e. Even i f I com e here, I want to have f

un wi th m y daug hter. A nd ov er the re i n the Un i ted A rab Em i rates, I ha ve ca r , I ’m g o ing t o ha ve ev er yt hin g t he r e, an d h av ing fa mily, fri ends, we can

go everyw

here we can, we’re goin

g to have fun there .” W h en th e tr i al cou rt a sk ed th e m oth er , “ [H ]ow

do w e k n ow y ou’ recom

m i tted to returnin g her[?]” the m

ot her repl ie d:

“ I d on ’t k n ow h ow to s ay i t, b ut i f I w an t to do t h i s, I’ m goi n g to do it from the begin

ni ng. Why I came here and h

ave all these pr oblems a nd just st ay near beca use I w ant t o o bey the law and be wit h t he law, I d on’ t want t o ju st go and r un aw ay and ha ve m i sera bl e l i f e f or my daug hter, I wan

t to be on the sa

me si de.” At the June 26hear ing, t he fat her t est ifi ed t hat he pu rc hase d t he airline t icket s for t he mother and ch

il d to travel to the UAE i

n Decem ber 2004 and tha

t t he round-trip ticke

ts had an op en- ende d r et ur n dat e fo r six mo nt hs. T he fat her t est ifi ed t hat , in Janu ar y 2005 , he flew t o t he UAE and t he mot her re fused t o let him bring the child back t o t he Unit ed S t at es. When he
re tur n ed to th e U n i ted Sta tes , he c on

tacted se v eral of f i ce s i n an atte m pt to b ri n g th e ch i l d b ack to t he Unit ed S t at es. The offices includ ed t he Unit ed S t at es e mbassies in Kuw ait a nd t he UAE , t he “W ash i ngton D.C. De partm en t of ch i l dren i ssue,” a nd th e of f i ce of Senator Di ck Du

rbi n.No. 1-06- 3304

6

On Febr uar y 18, 200 5, t he fat her obt ained a n emerg ency o rd er of p ro t ect ion fro m the ci rcui t court of C ook County

di recti ng th e m other to return

the chi l d to Chi cago. The f ather further testif

ie d that he returned to the UAE i n March 2005 and i

ni tiated a UAE court pro ceedi

ng to ret urn the chi

ld to the Uni

ted St ates He cl ai

me d that t he em

ergency order o f protection was un enf orceabl e i n the UA E but that o n March

16, 2005, he di d obtain a n or der fro m a UAE civil cour t pr ohibit ing t he child fro m leaving the UAE . H e t est ifi ed t hat he later learned that, co in

cidentally on the same day, March 16, 2005, t he m ot her had obtained a visa for her an d the chi ld to travel to Iraq. He clai me d that t he trip was

for the purpose of the m

ot her
en t er ing int o an ar r an ge d ma rr iag e in I r aq . T he fat he rt es t ified t ha t , wh ile he wa s in t he UA E in March 2005, he

obtaine d a second Un

ited States passport for t he ch il d. The ci rcuit court o f Cook County ex tended the em

ergency order o f protection until May 2, 200 5. On Ma y 2, 2 005 , t he t rial co ur t issued an o rd er st at ing t hat t he mot her was st ill in the UAE due to a tr avel

restriction an

d that t he m

ot her and c

hi ld s hal l return f or a cour t appearance on Ma y 26, 200 5, wh

i ch they did. In the m odif ie d joi nt parentin

g order, dat ed October 12, 2006, t he trial court ordered visit at io n in t he UA E du r ing t he ch ild’ s w int er an d s umme rbr ea ks fr o m sc ho o l. T he win t er visit is tw o w eek s long ; and t he su mmer visit st ar t s o ne we ek a fte r sc hoo l lets o ut for t he su mmer and ends one we ek bef

ore school starts again

in the fal l. The order pro vi

ded that the father or another agreed-upon adult sh

all a ccompan y the chi ld to and f

rom the UAE on al

l a irl in e fl igh ts, and that the mother sh

all pa y f or t he ai rli ne tic kets for the chi

ld a nd the accom

pany in g adul t. If the father accompan ie s the chi ld, then he h as the right to retain h

er passport during the v

is it. If an ot herNo. 1-06- 3304

7

adul t accompani

es the chi ld, then he or she m

ust deposit the chi

ld’ s passport with the A

me rican
em bass y i n Dub ai for the duration of the v

is it. In addi

tion to payi

ng f or t he trip, the m

ot her has t he r esp ons ibil

ity t o a rr ange for t he child’s visa t o t he UAE . T he fat her has t he r ight t o a one week visi t duri ng th e m other’ s su m mer vi si tation tim e i n the UA E. As a condi

tion preceden

t t o vis itation, the m

ot her m ust deposit a cash b ond of $100,000 wit h t he cle rk o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y, I llino is. I f t he mo t he rfails t o r et ur n t he ch ild to the father pursuan

t t o t he j oint parenti

ng order, t hen

the moni es i n the account sha

ll be f orfei ted
an d p aid t o t he fat he r . T he mo t he rwa s a lso o r de r ed t o pa y child su pp o r t o f $5 0 p er we ek wh ile she i s un em ploye d an d 20% of her net in

com e wh en she b ecom

es e m ploye d. On Oc t obe r 9 , 2 007 , t he ap pellat e co ur t on it s o wn mot ion o rd er ed t hat t he ap pea l shall be t ak en o n t he r ec o r d a nd t he ap pe llan t ’s br ief o nly.

AN AL YSIS On ap pea l, t he fat her ask s t his co ur t t o r ever se t hat po rt ion o f the mod ifi ed jo int p ar ent ing ord er wh i ch gr an ted v i si tati on i n th e U AE. Th e f

ath er se ek s rev er sa l on th e g rou n dsth at: f

i rs t, the tri al cou rt er red by gra nti ng vi si tation i n a cou ntr y tha t i s n ot a p arty to the Hague Con ve nti on and t hus w ill

not enfo rc e an Amer ican co ur t or der ; sec ond , t he t rial co ur t er re d by gr ant ing visitat ion in t he UAE wit hou t first obt aining t est imony or a wr itt en r epo rt fro m the g uar dian ad litem, a nd wit hou t co nsider ing t he wr itt en r epo rt of t he co ur t -a ppo inted psycho log ist; a nd t hird, t he t rial co ur t er re d by or der ing a se cur ity bo nd t o g uar ant ee t he mot her ’s r et ur n of t he chi l d wi thout f i rst he ari ng te sti mony on wh at would con sti

tute a rea sona

bl e am ount f or the b ond.No. 1-06- 3304

8 Vi si tation i n a Non-H ague

Coun try Secti on 607 (a) of

the Il l i noi s Ma rri age a nd D i ssol uti on of Marri age A ct (Di ssol uti on Act) prov i de s th at “ [a] pa ren t not g ran ted cu stod y of the ch i l d i s enti tl ed to rea son ab l e v i si tati on right s,” 750 ILC S 5 /6 07( a) (Wes t 200 6) . T he “t rial co ur t has br oa d disc re t ion in fashioning t he terms of v

is itation an

d those terms will

not be overturned absen

t pro of that the court has ab used its di scretion.” In r e Ma rr iage o f Enge lkens , 35 4 Il l . A pp. 3d 7 90, 792

(20 04) . “A

n a bu se of dis cretion exi

sts where no reasonab le

person would agree wi

th the positi on of the trial court .” Brax v . Kenn

edy , 363 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 34 3, 355 ( 2005)
. The i ssue of v

is itation i n thi s case is governed b

y s ection 607(a), not section 607(c) (750 ILCS 5/607(c) (West 2006)). Section 607(c) prohibi ts a trial court from

restrictin g a no nc us t o dia l pa r en t ’s visit at io n r igh t s “u nle ss it find s t ha t t he visit at io n w o uld en da ng er se r io us ly t he child’s p hysical, ment al, mo ra l or emot ional hea lth. ” 75 0 I LCS 5/ 607 (c ) ( West 200 6) . T he appe l l ate cou rt has i n ter pr ete d s ecti on

60 7( c) to protect th e ri gh t of a n on cu sto di al pa re n t to “st anda rd ” visita t ion, which include s uns upe rvised , o ver night visitat ion in t he ho me of t he
non cus todia l paren t. In re Marri age of Mousch ovias , 35 9 Ill. App. 3d 3 48, 358 (20 05) ; In re Ma rr iag e o f Wyco ff

, 26 6 Ill. App. 3d 4 08, 416 (19 94) ; Gi bs on v . Ba

rton , 118 Ill . App. 3d 576, 580 (19 83) . El

i m i na ti on of a “ sta nd ard as pe ct[] ” of vi si tati on i s a res tricti on, govern

ed by se cti on 607(c ) (750 ILCS 5/6 07(c) (We st 2006 )), wh i ch requi res a f i ndi ng of seri ous en dan germ en t. Mouschovias , 35 9 Ill. App. 3d at 358 ; Wyco ff , 26 6 Ill. App. 3d at 416 ; Gi bs on , 118 Ill . App. 3d at 580. In th e c as e a

t b ar , the tr

i al cou rt gra n ted v i si tati on i n th e h om e of th e n on cu sto di al pa re n t,No. 1-06- 3304

9

wh ich wo uld ce r t ain ly be s t an da r d, bu t fo rt he fac t t ha t it o cc ur s in t he UA E . While visit at io n in t he no ncus t od ial home is “st anda rd ,” re gular visitat ion in a fo re ign co unt ry 24 hou rs a way by pl an e i s n ot. A l thou gh se cti on 6 07( c) protects “

the sta nd ard as pe ctsof vi si tation, ” i t doe s n ot prot ect “unusua

l ri ghts.” Mouschovias , 359 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 358. Th us, t he se rio us e ndang er ment st an da r d o f se ct io n 6 07 ( c) do es no t ap ply t o t he ca se at ba r . T he iss ue in t he ca se at ba ris wh eth er th e tr i al cou rt a b us ed i ts b road di scre ti on

i n f ash i oni n g th e te rm s of v i si tati on pu rsua n t to Secti on 607 (a). Alt ho ug h c us t o dy in o ne co un t ry and visit at io n in a no t he rco un t ry is a n u nu su al
arran gem en t, it h as b een perm i tted. In reMa rri ag e of Pi ck h ol tz , 178 Ill . App. 3d 512, 515 (1988) (ag ree d o rde r pe rmitt ed no ncust od ial f at her biannual visitat ion in Israe l); Rand ivojevic v. Ra nd ivo jev ic , 11 Il

l . A pp . 3d 11 6, 1 18 (1 97 3) (i

n con tested ca se , tri al cou rt a wa rd ed cu sto dy to
m other i n G erm an y and perm i tted f athe r one-m onth v i si tation i n U ni ted States)
. In re Ma rr iag e o f Con don , 62 Cal. A

pp. 4, 533 , 54 0, 5 49, 73 C al . Rptr. 2d 33, 38, 44 ( 199 8) (tri al

cou rt di d n ot abus e its discr et ion by per mitt ing t he mot her t o mo ve wit h t he childr en t o Au st ra lia and gr ant ing the f athe r visi tation i n the Un i ted States d

uri ng s chool v

aca tions). The fat her claims tha t t he t rial co ur t abus ed it s discr et ion by o rd er ing visitat ion in t he UA E b ec au se , f

i rs t, th e U AE wi l l not e nf orce the orde r, a nd se con d, th e m othe r wi l l not vol unta ri l y return the chi l d. The UAE is not a party to t he Hague Conv ention on the

Ci vi l Aspects of Internati onal Chi ld A bduction (Hague

Conven tion) 51 Fed. Reg. 10494 (1986), and the m ot her’s a tt orney stipul ated to this

fact at a heari

ng on Jun e 26, 2006. The Hague Conven tion provides a ci

vi l l egalNo. 1-06- 3304

10

remedy to parents seeki

ng the return of or access to their ch il d (Hague Conven

tion arts. 1, 8, 9, and 10 ). Co unt rie s t hat hav e s igne d t he H ag ue Co nve nt io n ha ve a gr ee d t o t he p ro mpt re t ur n o f a ch ild w ho wa s ha bit ua lly re sid en t in a sig na t o ry co un t ry and wh o wa s r emo ve d o rr et ain ed in another signatory country i n vi olation of a parent’s custodial

righ ts (Hague Convention, arts. 1, 3, 4). A cc ordi

ng to the l i st of si gnatory cou ntr i esmai nta i ne d by the Un i ted State s D ep artm

en t of Stat e’s Bureau of

Consular Af

fai rs, the UAE i s not a sign

ator y to the Hague Conven tion, see Bu re au ’s we b si te a t ht t p: // t r av el. st at e. go v/ family/ ab du ct io n/ ha gu e_ iss ue s. ht ml. The f ather cla im s that sin ce the UAE is not a Hague signatory, he wi ll have no l egal
re cou rs e i f th e m oth er re f us es to retur n th e ch i l d f

rom a v i si t to the U AE. H owev er , c on

tra ry to t he fat her ’s claim, he was able t o o bt ain so me legal re co ur se in t he UAE . A c ou rt in the U AE i ss ue d a n or de r on Ma rch 17, 200 5, a

t the f ather’ s req

ue st i n or der to preven

t the ch i l d f rom trav el i ng to Iraq; an

d then appa ren tl y at the f ather’ s req

ue st, th e U AE cou rt ca nc el l ed the ba n on Ma y 16, 200 5, to al l ow the c hi l d to tra ve l ba ck to Ch i cago. The fat her claims tha t t he t rial co ur t abus ed it s discr et ion by gr ant ing visitat ion in a
cou n try th at wi l l n ot en f orc e a Un i ted Sta tes cu sto dy ord er , but h

e f ai l s to ci te a n y l eg al au th ori ty to s uppor t h i s c l ai m . “ A poi n t rai se d i n a b rief b ut n ot s uppor ted b y ci tati on to re l ev an t au th ori ty *** is therefore f

orfei ted.” People v . Wa

rd , 21 5 Ill. 2d 317 , 33 2 (2 005 ); In re Marri age of Bates , 21 2 I l l . 2d

48 9, 5 17 (2 00 4) (“

A re v i ewi n g c our t i s e n ti tl ed to h av e iss ue s c l ea rl y de f i n ed wi th relevant aut hor ity cited” ); Rosier v . Cascade Mountai n, Inc. , 367 Ill . App. 3d 559, 568 (2006) (t his c o ur t held t hat , b y failing t o o ffer any s up po rt ing le ga l au t ho rit y or re as o ning , p laint iffs waived co nsiderat ion o f their t heor y f or asser ting pe rso nal jurisdiction o ver d efendant s);No. 1-06- 3304

11

Ferguson v . Bil

l B erger Associates, Inc. , 30 2 I l l . A pp . 3d 61 , 78 (1 99 8) (“ i

t i s n ot n ec es sa

ry to de ci dethi s q ue sti on s i nc e the def

en da nt h aswai ve d the i ss

ue ” b y f ai l i ng to of f er c as e c i tati on or o t he rsu pp o r t as Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 3 41 r eq uir es ) ; 2 10 I ll. 2 d R
. 34 1( h) ( 7) ( ar gu men t in appe l l ate bri ef

m ust b e su pported b y ci tation ). The f athe r did ci te a New York custody

cas e, Ahma d v
. Na viw ala , 762 N.Y.S.2d 125, 306 A.D .2 d 58 8 ( 3d. Dep t . 2 003 ). In Ah ma d , a New Yor k appe ll

ate cou rt reverse d a t rial court ’s award of custody to the father an d granted sole custo dy to the mother, where the f ather secreted t he childr en fo r t wo years in Sau di Ara bia, o bt ained a n ex pa rteaw ar d o f cu st o dy in Sa ud i Ar ab ia
and attem pted to conc eal

the chi l dren wh en they trave l ed to the U

ni ted States. Ahmad v. Na viw ala , 762 N.Y.S.2d 125, 306 A.D.2d 588 (3d. Dept. 2003) . The Ah me d ca se is r ea dily dis tingui shab le from the case at bar. In the cas e at bar, the mother returned the chi ld to the Uni

ted St at es w ith no t ice t o t he fat her and d id no t see k cu st od y in anot her jurisd ictio n. T he ca se at ba ris a lso dis t ing uis ha ble fr o m Mit ch ell v. Mit ch ell , 252 Ga. 46, 311 S.E .2d 456 (1 984 ), a cu st od y case p ro hibiting t ra vel to t he UAE . I n Mit ch ell , th e Su pre me C ourt of Geo rg ia held t hat a t rial co ur t had d iscre t ion t o o rd er t he pa re nt s no t t o p ro cur e pa ssp or t s for t he chi ldren, where the parties h ad resided i

n the UA E for seven

ye ars prior to t he di

vorce, the father had a bsco nded t o G eo rg ia with t he childr en immediate ly prior t o filing for divo rc e in Geo rg ia and the m other ob j ected to res i den

ce i n G eorgia. Mit ch ell , 252 Ga. at 46-47, 49, 311 S.E. 2d at 457- 59. The Geo rg ia Su pr eme Co ur t held t hat t he t rial co ur t had t he disc re t ion t o p ro hibit o bt aining pas spo rt s, s ince t he fat her wo uld have no leg al rec ou rse in the U AE if the mot her t oo k t he chi l dren back to the U

AE. Mit ch ell , 252 Ga. at 49, 311 S.E.2d at 459.No. 1-06- 3304

12

The Mit ch ell cas e is dist inguishable fr om o ur cas e in tw o r esp ect s. F irst , a fte r he ar ing t est imony by the p ar t ies, t he t rial co ur t in Mit ch ell exercised i ts discretion to forbi

d out -of-Uni

ted States trav

el , wh erea s the

tria l court i n the ca se a

t bar exerci sed

i ts di scre tion to perm i t it. Ob vio us ly, t he t r ial c o ur t s’ firs t ha nd as se ss men t s o f t he pa r t ies in t he ir r es pe ct ive ca se s w as va st ly different . S eco nd, t he mot her in the c ase at bar has a gr eed t o t he r eside nce o f her c hild in the Uni ted St ates and returned the chi ld to the Uni

ted St ates for that purpo se. In light of t he fact t hat t he fat her was able t o o bt ain so me legal re co ur se in t he UAE and the f act tha t the m other returne d the

daug hter to the

Uni ted States f

rom th e UA E, thi s court cann ot fi nd that the trial

court abused i

ts discretion in

permi tt in g vi si tation in the UAE. A tria

l court i s i n a better posi

tion than a rev i ewi ng c ourt for we i ghi

ng th e ev i den ce. Bates , 212 Ill . 2d at 516. This is particularly

true when a trial

court mus

t judge the credi

bi li ty of conf li cting w itnes ses i n orde r to determ

i ne wh at i s i n the b est i

ntere sts of

a ch i l d. Bates , 212 Il

l . 2d at 51 6. In t he alt er nat ive, t he fat her ar gue s t hat t he go ver ning st at ut e in the cas e at bar is not t he vi sitation stat ute ( 750 ILCS 5/6 07 (West 200 6)), but a removal statut e (750 ILCS 5 /609 (West 2006)). Removal

and v is itation cases requi

re dif feren t standards of revi

ew. In a rem

oval case, t his co ur t will rever se t he t rial co ur t ’s de cision o nly i f it is aga inst t he manifest weight of t he
evi den ce. Ford v. Mart eness , 368 Ill . App. 3d 172, 175 (2006). By contrast, in a v is itation case, thi s court wi

l l reverse onl y f or an a bus e of di scre tion
. Eng elkens , 354 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 792. In su pp ort of h i s c l ai m th at th e rem ov al sta tute gov er n s, th e f ath er as se rtsi n h i s a pp el l ate bri ef that “the

parties treated vi si

tation overseas as rem

oval of Basm a to t he Un

ited A rab Emi rates” and that the “guardian ad l item ma de hi s recomm

endati on based upon the rem ovalNo. 1-06- 3304

13

statut e.” However, the father’s appella te brief fai ls to ci te any le gal authority f

or his c la im that t he r emova l sta t ut e sho uld g ove rn t he t rial co ur t ’s aw ar d o f visitat ion. As no t ed a bove , a ny po ints no t sup po rt ed by lega l aut hor ity in an app ellate brief ar e ge ner ally waived. In a ddit ion, t he appe l l atecou

rt h aspre vi ous l y trea ted vi si tation i n a noth er c oun try asan i ss uepur suan

t to se cti on 607, the vi si

tation statute (75 0 ILC S 5/60 7 (West 200 6)). Mouschav ias , 359 Ill . App. 3d at 358- 359. To th e e xte

nt th at the re mova l f ac tors provi dethi

s c ourt wi th s ome g ui da nc e, th ey do n ot sugges t a dif fe rent outcome. Section 60 9, the rem oval statute, provid

es:

“ The c our t m ay gr an t l ea v e, b ef oreor a f ter j udgm en t, to any par t y having cus t od y of any minor c hild or childre n t o r emove suc h child or childre n fro m Illi nois w heneve r su ch ap pr ova l is i n t he best i nterests of such c

hi ld or chi ldren . The burden

of provi ng that
such rem ova l i s i n th e b es t i nte res ts of such ch i l d or chi l dre n i s on t he pa rt y seek ing t he r emova l. When su ch r emova l is permit t ed, t he
cou rt m ay req ui re th e p arty rem ovi ng such ch i l d or chi l dre n f rom Ill in ois to give reasonabl

e securi ty guaranteei

ng the return of such chi l dren .” 750ILCS 5/609(a)(W est 200 6). Wh en de cidi ng a re moval petiti on, a tria l court must consider the f oll owin g f i ve f actors: first , w het her t he pr op os ed mo ve will enhance t he qu ality o f li fe for bot h t he cu st od ial par ent and t he child; se co nd, whet her t he pr op os ed mo ve is a r use des igned t o fr ust ra t e o r d efeat t he
no nc us t o dia l pa r en t ’s visit at io n; t hir d, t he mo t ive s o f t he no nc us t o dia l pa r en t in r es ist ing r emo va l;No. 1-06- 3304

14

f ourth, th e v

i si tation r i gh ts of the non cu stod i al pa ren t; a nd f i f th, whether a

rea son ab l e v i si tation sch edul e ca n b e achi ev ed if the m ove is al l owed. Ford , 368 Ill . App. 3d at 175, citin g In re Marri age of Ecker t , 119 Il l . 2d 316 (1988 ). These fi ve f acto rs are phrased in terms of the custo dial parent seeking removal . For t hese factors to pr ovide

any guida nce to this court in

the case at bar, we ha

ve to read “noncustodial paren t” wherev er the f actors state “c

ustodial paren t.” First , visit at ion in t he UAE will enhance t he qu ality o f li fe for bot h t he mot her and t he ch i l d. T h e m oth er n ow l i v es i n th e U AE. Vi si tati on i n th e m oth er ’s h om e wi l l al l ow th e ch i l d to kno w her mot her bet t er and p ar t icipat e in her mo t her ’s da ily lif e. In a ddit ion, t he mot her will be able t o p ro vide ac t ivities fo r he r c hild in her co mmunity which wo uld be d iff icult t o a rr ange if the mother were m

erely a vi si to r in the Uni ted St ates Second, although the f ather has cl

ai me d that t he mo t he rwill no t r et ur n t he ch ild, he ha s no t cla imed t ha t t he mo t he r ’s de sir e fo rvisit at io n in t he UAE is a mere ru se. Third , a s far a s t he mot ives o f the fat her in resist ing visitat ion in t he UA E, he adm i tted i n h i s bri ef to thi s court that the p arti es’ relati onsh i p has b een

“v ery acrim onious.” Duri

ng the hearin

g on June 26, 2006, the trial court noted that t he f

ather refuse d to look at t he m

ot her duri ng he r testimony

. Fourt h, as f

or t he f ather’s vi si tation righ

ts, t he f ather has t he r ight t o visit his dau ght er for one wee k du ring he r su mmer so jou rn in t he UAE . Fift h, t he fat her has no t claimed t hat t he visita t ion sc hedu le is unre aso nable. Thu s, t o t he ext ent t hat t he fi ve rem oval factors provide s ome gui dance, they

do not suggest a di ff

erent out come. As

noted befo re , t his co ur t finds t hat t he t rial co ur t did no t abus e its discr et ion by gr ant ing visitat ion in t he UA E.No. 1-06- 3304

15 No Testimony

or Written Report From Guardian Ad Li tem The f ather cla im s that the trial

court erred when i

t faile d to obtain testi

mony or a written
re po rt fro m the c ou rt -a ppo inted gua rd ian ad litem an d dep ri v ed th e f ath er of th e op por tun i ty to cr os s-e xamine the gua rd ian ad litem . I n lieu of a wr itt en r epo rt or t est imony, t he gu ar dian ad li tem provided an

oral report t o t he trial

court , which i

ncl uded a recomm

endati on that t he trial court perm

i t vi si tation i n the UA E. Se cti on 50 6 of th e D i ss ol

uti on A ct state s th

at a “ gu ardi an u sh al l testi f y or sub m i t a written repo rt t o t he court regarding hi s or her r ecommen dations.” 750 I LCS 5/506(a) (2) (West 200 6). Sec

ti on 5 06 a

l so p rovi de s th

at the “gua

rdi an ad l i tem may be cal l ed asa w i tne ss f or purposes of cross-exam

in ation regardi

ng the guardian ad l

item ’s report o r recomm

endati ons.” 750 I LCS 5/5 06(a )(2 ) (West 2006) . The I ll inois Supreme Cou rt has held that a t rial court ’s denial o f a par t y’s req ues t t o c ro ss- examine a g uar dian ad litem is a deni al of procedural due proces s. Bates , 21 2 Il

l . 2d at 5 14. Thi s d

ueproc es s v

i ol ati on i s s ub j ec t to ha rm l es s error anal y si s. Bates , 212 Ill . 2d at 515. In t he ca se a t bar , t he gu ar dian ad litem pres en ted hi s rec omm

endations i

n a n oral report t o t he co ur t du r ing a p r et r ial c o nfe r en ce wit h c o un se l pr es en t . T he fat he rdid no t cla im in his appella te brief that he obj ected at t he pretrial conferen ce to t he oral report or t hat he m ade a
re que st at t hat t ime for t est imony, cr os s-e xaminatio n or a r epo rt in writ ing. Ap par ent ly f or t he fi rst t im e on appeal , the father cl

ai me d that t he guardian’s

oral report surpr is ed hi

m a nd precl uded his abili t y to pr epa re ade qua t ely for t rial. H e failed t o c ite t o a ny place in t he r eco rd wher e he
made th ese clai m s to the trial

court. Bates , 21 2 I l l . 2d at 5 17 (a pa rty m us t prov i de

ci tati on s toNo. 1-06- 3304

16

the relev ant pages i

n the record); 210 Ill . 2d R.341(h)(7) (appellant is required to subm

it a bri ef wi th ci tation to “the page s of the re cord rel

i ed on”). Since the f

ather fail ed to object in

the cou rt below, he has waived consi derat ion of these i ssues on appe al
. Lang e v. Fre und , 3 67 I ll. App. 3d 6 41, 648 -4 9 ( 200 6) . T he plain er ro r d oc t rine does p erm

i t an a ppel l ate court to revi ew er

rors not properl

y pres erved at the tri al

l ev el
. Lange , 367 Ill. App. 3d at 649 ; Gil le spi e v. Chry

sl er Moto rs Corp. , 135 Ill . 2d 363, 375 (1990). “But this doctr in

e is appl ied i n ci vil cases onl

y wh ere the act complai

ned of was a prejudicial

erro r so egr egio us t hat it d epr ived t he co mplaining par t y of a fair t rial and subs t ant ially impaired t he in tegrity of the judi ci al process.” Lange , 36 7 Ill. App. 3d at 649 ; Gille sp ie , 135 Il l . 2d at 37 7. Bef ore an error can rise to the lev el of a plai n error, t here m

ust fi rst be a “thresh

old-level showi ng” of prej udice. Lange , 3 67 I ll. App. 3d a t 649 . T he fat her has no t explained what he
wo uld ha ve do ne diffe r en t ly if he h ad r ec eiv ed t he gu ar dia n’s r ec o mmend at io n e ar lier an d in wri ti ng . Th us , thi s c ourt f

i nds b oth th

at the f ather wai ve d th i s iss uef or ap pe al an d that i t did n ot ri se to the l ev el of a plai n error. In a ddit ion, t he lack of c ro ss- examinat ion o f the gua rd ian ad litem did no t violat e t he f athe r’sri ght to due process . As noted b ef

ore, a due proces s v

i ola tion occurs wh en a tri al court denies a pa rt y’s req ues t t o c ro ss- examine a g uar dian ad litem
. Bates , 212 Il l . 2d at 51 4. However, the Bates dec ision, which t he fat her cite s, is no t on p oint . I n Bates , the p ar ty re que st ed t he o ppo rt unit y to examine t he Gu ar dian ad litem ; by cont ra st , in t he ca se a t bar , t he f athe r ne ver m ade s uch a requ est. Bates , 21 2 Il

l . 2d at 5 14. Th

us , no due

proc es s v

i ol ati on occurred.No. 1-06- 3304

17 Re com men da ti on of Sec ti on 6 04( b)Ev al ua tor T he fat he rals o cla ims t ha t t his c o ur t sho uld r ev er se t he t r ial c o ur t ’s o r de ro f visit at io n in t he UAE beca use t he t rial co ur t failed t o c ons ider t he r epo rt of D r. Palen, who was app oint ed by the c ourt to eval

uate the parti

es a nd th e ch i l d. In his wri tten rep ort dated De cem

ber 12, 20 05, Dr. Pale n recomm ended that the chi

ld “continue

to resi de i

n the pri ma ry care of the mother” an

d that the parties sh

are le gal custody. Wi

th respect to travel, Dr. Palen recom me nded that “n

ei ther parent be ab le

to travel wi

th Basm a out o f the Un

ited States without leav

e of the court,” t hat “each of the parents post a sizeabl e bond to ensure that Basm a not be remove d from

the Uni ted St at es o r se cr et ed fr o m t he o t he rpa r en t , ” a nd t ha t “[ h] er r emo va l fro m t he Un it ed St at es wo uld be i rreparabl y de trim ental to her wel

l-b ei ng.” In d i rect con tradicti on of

the f athe r’sclai m that the tria l court f ail ed to cons i der Dr
. Pal en ’s rep ort, the tri

al cou rt sp ec i f i cal l y ref erred to Dr. Pal

en ’s rep ort i n i ts w ri tten j udg men t f or di ssol uti on of marriage, d

ated October 12 , 2006. I n f act, wi th res pect to trave l , the tri

al court implemented most of D r. Palen’ s re co mmendat ions. First , t he t rial co ur t ’s o rd er implemented t he par t ies’ ag re ement and D r. Palen’ s re co mmendat ion t hat t he child no t be r emove d fro m the Unit ed S t at es bu t re main here o n a pe rmanent basis. Sec ond , t he t rial co ur t or der ed t he po st ing of a s ize ab l e b ond , as

Dr. Pal en rec om men de d. Th i rd, Dr. Pal

en rec om men de d that the c hi

l d n ot t ra vel ou t of t he Unit ed S t at es w itho ut leave o f co ur t , a nd t he pa re nt ing o rd er gave spe cific leave of c ourt for the ch

i l d to travel

on b i an nua l visi ts to her m

other i n the UA E. The f ather’s appel

la te brief fai le d to ci te any pages i n the record to support his cl ai m that the trial court did n

ot consider Dr. Palen ’s report. I n addi tion, even if the father’ s clai

m wasNo. 1-06- 3304

18

fact ually cor re ct , his br ief fail ed t o c ite a ny legal aut hor ity for t he pr op os itio n t hat a pa re nt ing order must be revers ed i f a tri al court does not co nsi

der the psy

chol ogist’s report. As noted abo ve, a pa rt y waives a c laim by faili ng t o s upp or t it w ith cit at ions t o leg al aut hor ity o r t he record. Wa

rd , 21 5 Ill. 2d at 332 ; Bates , 212 Il l . 2d at 51 7; 2 10 Il

l . 2d R.3 41(h

)(7). Th is co ur t will no t re ver se a t ria l co ur t simply be ca us e it de cid ed no t t o fo llow all o f a psy chologi st’s recom men dations. Dr Pal

en wasappoi

nted pursuan t to secti on 604 (b), which pe rmits t he t rial co ur t t o “s eek t he ad vice o f pro fessio nal per so nnel,” 750 ILC S 5 /6 04( b) (Wes t 200 6) . N ot hing in sect ion 6 04 r equ ires t he t rial co ur t t o fo llow t he ad vice o f the 604 (b)
ev alu at o r . Ad vic e is simp ly t ha t – a dv ice
. T he t r ial c o ur t is t he ult imat e fa ct find er in ach ild
cus tody c ase , not the e

xpe rt wi tnes s. I n r e M ar r iag e o f Ga mbla , 367 Ill . App. 3d 441, 468 ( 20 06 )
. “P r o hibit ing a t r ier o f fac t fr o m re jec t ing an ex pe r t ’s o pin io n o n a n u lt imat e is su e w o uld usurp the role of the tri er of f act.” Ga mbla , 367 Ill . App. 3d at 468 (this c ourt aff irm ed a trial court ’s award of c

ustody to t he m

ot her, despi

te the contrar y recom

me ndations of the two ps y ch ol ogi sts wh o were or de red to pe rf orm cu stod y eval ua ti ons). Th

us , th e tri al cou rt’ s dec i si on not to im plem en t al l of Dr. Pal

en ’srecom

mendations i

s n ot, by i tself , a groun d f or reve rsal
. Amount of S ecu rit y Bond Th e f ather c l ai m s th at th i s c ourt shou

l d re ve rs e the p art of

the orde r provi di ng f or v i si tati on i n th e U AE b ec au se

th e tr i al cou rt f ai l ed to h ea r e v i den ce

con cern i n g th e a pp rop riate am ount o f the s ecurity

bond be fore setting i

ts amount. Specif

ic ally , the father cl

ai me d in hi s brief t o t his c o ur t t ha t : “ [ a] t t he t r ial, Co un se l fo rPe t it io ne rFa t he rt r ied t o as k w ha t wo uld be a fa ir
amou nt for t he bo nd, but t he Co ur t sus t ained t he o bject ion, not allowing t est imony on t heNo. 1-06- 3304

19

subjec t .” The brief t hen cit es t he cr os s-e xaminatio n of t he mot her by the fat her ’s at t or ney dur ing th e J un e 2 6th hea rin g. The b rie f c i tes a page i n the record whi

ch c ontai ns the f oll owin g col l oquy: MR. SI MKIN : “Ho w much o f a cas h bond ar e you ant icipat ing
su gg esti n g to th e C our t wou l d b e a f ai r a moun t? MS. AVERY:[m

ot her’s a tt orney]: Judge, I’m

going to object t o t he qu est ion bec aus e t hat ’s pa rt of o ur set t lement ne go t iatio ns b etw een attor n ey s a n d a t thi s p oi n t – THE CO UR T: I t hasn ’t b een a

gre ed to? MS. AVE RY: Well, frank ly, we ha ven’t even d iscuss ed t he
num ber. My clie nt, as she s ai d earli

er, wil l do wha tever your Honor rules. MR. SIMKIN: I ’ll

rephrase my

question. If the Co urt sets a cash
am ount o f a b ond [ sic ] hasto be depos i ted ei the r wi th th e C ourt or i n s ome other f ash i on an d y ou are un ab l e to ma

ke th at bon

d, are you agreeab le

that your parentin

g tim e i n the Un ited A rab Em irates will not co mmence unt il that bond is po st ed? D o yo u und er st and my quest ion? MS. SAHEB: I do understand. MS. AVERY: I guess I’d obj ect to the fol low [ sic ] o f the que st ion, Jud ge, beca use we d on’ t kno w yet what t he t er ms of t he agreement are go in

g to stat e. So , I mean Counsel is –No. 1-06- 3304

20 TH E C OU

RT : I t h i n k sh e a n sw ered th at sh e is wi l li

n g to p ost

a bond. MS. AVERY: Yes. THE COURT: And the terms are to be determi ned. MR . S I MK I N: Ok ay. MS. AVERY: Yes.” The above c olloquy shows t hat t he tr ial cou rt deferred to the r eprese ntat ion of the mot her’s at t or ney, t o w hich the fat her ’s at t or ney acq uiesc ed, t hat t he at t or neys wer e eng age d in set t lement negot iations an

d that questioning ab out the amount wo uld endan ger t hose negot iations. The I l l i n oi s S up re me C our

t h as h el d th at, un der “ ‘th e doctr i n e of i n v i ted er ror, ’ ” a p ar ty

“‘m ay not req ue st to p roce ed

i n on e m an ne r an d then l ater con ten d on appe al tha t the cou rs e of action was i

n error.’ ” People v . Harvey, 211 Ill . 2d 368, 385 (2004), quot in g People v . Carter , 208 Ill . 2d

309 , 31 9 (2 003 ). To p erm i t a p arty to us e, a s a

ve hi cl e f or reve rs al , th e e xa

ct acti on whi ch i t pro cured in

the trial court “ ‘woul

d off end al l n ot ions of f ai r play ’ ” and e

ncourage dupl i ci ty b y l i tig an ts. Harvey

, 211 Ill . 2d at 385, quo ting People v . Vil la rreal , 198 Ill . 2d 209, 227 (2001). Thus, when a party “procures, in

vi tes or acquiesces”

to a trial court ’s ev

ide ntiary ruli ng, ev en i f the ru l i ng i s i m proper, h e ca nn ot contest the

rul i ng on appe al
. People v. Bush , 214 Ill . 2d 318 , 33 2 (2 005 ); Harvey

, 21 1 Ill. 2d at 386 ; People v . Caff ey , 205 Il l . 2d 52, 1 14 (20 01). In the case at bar, the father’s att orney acquiesced to t he m ot her’s atto rney’ s repres en tation to th

e tri al cou rt con cerni ng ong oi ng settl em en t ne gotiati

ons . The f

ather c an not
n ow c om pl ai n ab out a n acti on th at h e i n v i ted . Th us , the l ack of testi mon y ab out a n appropri ateNo. 1-06- 3304

21

am ount for the bond i s not a ground for reversal . In addi tion, the fa

ther has off

ered no evi

dence that t he $100,000 bond s et by the trial court was i

nadequate. CONCLUSION For the f oregoi ng r eas ons, th e m odi f i ed j oin t paren tin g order of the tri al court i s af

f i rm ed. Fi rs t, the tr i al cou rt di d n ot ab us e i ts d i scre ti on b y perm i tti n g v i si tati on i n a c oun try th at is n ot a party to t he Hague Conv

ention, wh

ere the fathe

r was previ

ously abl e to o btain

some l egal recourse in

the non-Hague country a nd the m ot her previ

ously returned the chi

ld to the Uni

ted State s. S ec ond , b y

f ai l i ng to obj ec t i

n th e tri al cou rt, the f ather wai ve d c ons i derati

on on appe al of t he lack of t est imony or a wr itt en r epo rt by the g uar dian ad litem . Thi rd, the tria l court im ple me nted most of the psy

chol ogist’s recom

me ndations with res pect to travel, an

d the trial court’s deci sion n ot to i m pl em en t al l of the psy

chologi st’s recom mendations i

s n ot, by i tself , a ground for reversal . Fourt h, the f ather cann

ot now compl

ai n ab out the la

ck of testim

ony a bout t he ap pr op riat e amo unt of t he se cur ity bo nd whe n his act ions a t t he t rial co ur t invited t he finding by the trial court and wh

en the f ather fai le d to show that the amount of the sec urity bond was i nadequate. Af fi rmed. CA HILL , P.J., an

d GA RCIA, J., con

cur.