2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

No. 2-22-0216 

Order filed February 15, 2023

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent 

except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(l).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

In re MARRIAGE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court

DAMIAN ZAGORSKI, ) of McHenry County. 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

and ) No. 20-DV-611 

) 

ANNA ZAGORSKI, ) Honorable 

) Justin M. Hansen,

Respondent-Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Jorgensen and Schostok concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not err in awarding a majority of parenting time to the respondent 

mother. Therefore, we affirm.

¶ 2 Petitioner, Damian Zagorski, appeals the trial court’s allocation of parenting time. Damian 

argues that the trial court erred in awarding respondent, Anna Zagorski, a majority of the parenting 

time. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 2 - 

¶ 4 Damian and Anna were married on June 6, 2008. During their marriage they had one child, 

P.Z., born October 13, 2014. On August 26, 2020, Damian petitioned for a dissolution of the 

marriage.

¶ 5 The matter proceeded to a bench trial in November 2021. Anna testified as follows. At the 

time she was 34 years old and married to Damian. They were residing in the same household, the 

marital residence located in Lake in the Hills, with P.Z., who was seven years old. Anna had lupus 

and epilepsy. When she was under “extreme stress” or was overworking, she might get a seizure. 

Lupus for her was “kind of like arthritis.” Because of the condition, she was often tired, but her 

current work schedule allowed her to “sleep like a normal person,” which helped “take stress off” 

her health conditions.

¶ 6 Anna worked at Snap-on Tools in Crystal Lake. She began working there in February 2018 

and was hired as a distribution associate in December 2018. By August 2020 she was in her current 

position as part of the company’s Rapid Continuous Improvement team, which required her to “do 

almost everything,” including research and development. Her current hours were 6:30 a.m. to 3 

p.m., and she sometimes worked overtime. She made $19.92 per hour. She believed she could 

afford living at the marital residence after the divorce. She acknowledged it may be difficult to 

afford, but she cited her ability to get overtime work and that her friend, Beata, would be living 

with her. Beata planned to move in with her after the divorce, and she would pay rent. P.Z. “really, 

really like[d]” Beata. She was requesting the marital residence because P.Z. needed a stable home.

¶ 7 Anna did not believe it was in P.Z.’s best interest for Damian to have an active role in 

parental decision-making, but she did believe he should be involved in educational, medical, 

religious, and extracurricular decisions. She would consider Damian’s opinion on those matters 
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 3 - 

even if she were granted sole decision-making responsibility. She and Damian were both Catholic 

and would like for P.Z. to follow that faith.

¶ 8 Over the past six months, she and Damian had been doing an “every other day” parenting 

schedule: she had P.Z. one day, and Damian had him the next. The schedule provided for “more 

or less” equal parenting time—she sometimes would have to spend extra time caring for P.Z. 

during Damian’s scheduled time when he was unavailable. P.Z. was adjusted to his current 

schedule, but she qualified, saying, “I’m always there. And whenever he needs something, he will 

always find me.” If P.Z. wet the bed at night, he went to Anna’s room, not Damian’s. Anna made 

almost all of P.Z.’s appointments with the doctor and dentist; Damian “didn’t even know the name 

of the doctor.”

¶ 9 P.Z. was in the first grade, and Anna wanted him to remain in his current school district. 

He knew people in the neighborhood and had friends. P.Z. was doing very well in school. He never 

missed any homework assignments, and he was able to communicate in three languages: Polish, 

English, and Spanish. Anna was the one who registered P.Z. for school and coordinated afterschool care for P.Z., and Damian told her she had done a good job choosing P.Z.’s babysitter, 

Michelle. Michelle was a neighbor who lived about two blocks from the marital residence.

¶ 10 Anna noted examples where Damian was supposed to be caring for P.Z. but left him to do 

something else. She testified that Damian was easily frustrated and that, in the past, he did not deal 

much with anything related to P.Z.—Anna provided the care. She cooked for P.Z. and Damian, 

and she was the one who bought P.Z. clothes and taught him to tie his shoes and ride his bike. She 

noted some past incidents where Damian had made derogatory comments about her in front of 

P.Z., including calling her a “dumb bitch” in 2020, and calling her stupid in 2019 after remarking 

that she could not even clean the kitchen.
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 4 - 

¶ 11 Ultimately, Anna believed Damian was a good father and that it was important for him and 

P.Z. to have a relationship. Anna wanted a parenting schedule that allowed for Damian to be home 

and spend time with P.Z. She requested that, following the divorce, P.Z. would have one overnight 

with Damian per week, preferably Thursday. That way, when there was an every-other-week 

schedule, Damian would have Thursday through Sunday, and she could get P.Z. ready for the next 

week of school. She wanted the parenting schedule to be different during the summer than the 

school year because she believed Damian did not discipline P.Z. as he should when he misbehaved 

at school.

¶ 12 Beata Trzcinski, Anna’s friend, testified as follows. She was a self-employed hairstylist, 

and she had a six-month old daughter. She described Anna as her “nonbiological sister.” For the 

last nine years they were “very, very best friends. Talk every day. Spend a lot of time together, on 

even holidays and special occasions.” She had taken care of P.Z. for Anna and Damian on several 

occasions, and P.Z. called her “ciotka” or “auntie” when he saw her.

¶ 13 She and Anna had discussed living together if Anna were awarded the marital residence. 

They planned to “split all the bills, rent, gas, electric, food.” They intended to split the expenses

35/65, with Beata paying the 35%. Beata estimated that she would pay $750 a month, which 

included contribution toward the mortgage payment.

¶ 14 Beata described Anna as an “amazing” parent. P.Z. always came first. She was affectionate 

and fun with P.Z. but also had rules for him to follow. She made sure P.Z. was ready for school in 

the mornings and made sure he ate healthily. When asked if she thought Damian was a good father, 

she responded that “he was more like a buddy-buddy to P.Z.” She described trying to take Anna 

out for her 30th birthday. Damian was supposed to watch P.Z. while they were out, but he 
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 5 - 

repeatedly texted and called Anna about how to care for P.Z., and Anna went home early to care 

for P.Z. 

¶ 15 Damian testified as follows. He was 35 years old and currently living with Anna at the 

marital residence. He was employed at TC Industries as a supervisor. His work schedule as a 

supervisor was 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and P.Z.’s school started around 8:30 a.m. and ended at 3 p.m.

¶ 16 After he filed the petition for dissolution of marriage in August 2020, he and Anna had a 

“one on, one off” parenting schedule, and the schedule was working. He believed they were 

following that schedule about six months prior to him filing the petition. Prior to that, there was 

no agreed upon schedule. Both he and Anna had days when they were unavailable for agreed-upon 

parenting time. When he and Anna were both home and something happened at night, P.Z. would 

go to Anna’s room.

¶ 17 Damian believed that he and Anna had “slightly different” parenting styles. She would pull 

P.Z. aside and have conversations with P.Z.—she would explain things a bit more. Damian had 

rules for P.Z.: he had to behave, listen, be respectful, and ask when he needed something. P.Z. had 

chores, which Damian encouraged him to perform. Damian would help P.Z. with his homework. 

He had consequences for P.Z. if he did not do his homework or misbehaved, like taking away toys 

or television time.

¶ 18 Damian testified that Anna had made negative comments about him in front of P.Z. About 

two weeks before trial, she had told P.Z. “don’t listen to daddy” regarding a sport that he and P.Z.

were watching. She had previously called him names and given him the middle finger in front of 

P.Z. There was never any physical violence or threat of physical violence between anyone in the 

family.
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 6 - 

¶ 19 Damian agreed to make decisions with Anna regarding P.Z.’s medical care, education, 

religion, and extracurricular activities. He was willing to consider Anna’s opinions on decisions 

for P.Z., and he believed that he and Anna could cooperate in making decisions in P.Z.’s best 

interest. He believed Anna was a good mother.

¶ 20 Damian’s November 2, 2021, financial affidavit listed monthly “mortgage or rent” 

payments of $1879.44. He testified that if he were awarded the marital residence, he would be able 

to continue making the monthly mortgage payments. According to Damian’s April 24, 2021, 

answers to matrimonial interrogatories, the marital residence was purchased in 2017 for $237,000, 

with approximately $221,000 owing on the mortgage loan. Agnes Fafrowicz, who was the parties’ 

realtor when they purchased the marital residence, opined that at the time of trial, the marital 

residence would sell for between $285,000 and $300,000.

¶ 21 On May 16, 2022, the trial court issued its memorandum decision and judgment on 

Damian’s petition for dissolution of marriage. Therein, it granted the dissolution of the parties’ 

marriage, divided the marital property, allocated parenting time, provided for shared decisionmaking, and set maintenance and child support.

¶ 22 The trial court found that Anna earned approximately $41,000 in annual gross income, and 

Damian’s annual gross income was approximately $79,000. The trial court, having considered the 

statutory factors under section 504 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) 

(750 ILCS 5/504 (West 2020)), found that maintenance was appropriate, and ordered Damian to 

pay Anna $279.17 in maintenance per month for 76 months. The court also ordered that Damian 

pay Anna child support in the amount of $314 per month until P.Z. turned 18 or graduated high 

school, whichever were to occur later.
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 7 - 

¶ 23 The trial court assigned the marital residence to Anna. The trial court explained its 

assignment as “primarily concerned with P.Z. maintaining a stable place of residence. Because 

Anna [was] assigned the majority of parenting time during the school year, P.Z. [would] be most 

stable if she maintain[ed] the marital residence.”

¶ 24 Turning to the allocation of parental responsibilities, the trial court recounted the evidence 

related to the best interest factors set forth in section 602.7 of the Act (750 ILCS 5/602.7 (West 

2020)). Damian requested equal parenting time, and Anna requested a majority of the parenting 

time. The trial court noted that they agreed on “significant aspects of decision-making and 

parenting time” and that their “primary point of disagreement is parenting time during the

schoolyear.” As to the wishes of the child, the court did not hear evidence of P.Z.’s wishes.

¶ 25 Regarding the child’s adjustment to his home, school, and community, the court found that 

P.Z. was well-adjusted to his current routine, including sharing the marital residence with both 

parents. The judgement would “inevitably upset” P.Z.’s routine because Anna was awarded the 

marital residence and Damian would reside elsewhere. At the time of the decision, the trial court 

did not know where Damian would reside.

¶ 26 For the amount of time each parent spent performing caretaking functions in the 24 months 

before the petition, the trial court found that Damian’s caretaking activities began more recently.

Although Damian was “competent to handle caretaking activities during his parenting time,” he 

“relied on Anna to handle many caretaking activities prior to the litigation.”

¶ 27 On the physical and mental health of those involved, Damian and Anna each testified that 

they were in good mental and physical health. However, Anna later testified that she had lupus 

and epilepsy, although her change in shift time had helped her management of these conditions. 

P.Z. was healthy.
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 8 - 

¶ 28 The trial court continued that the parties were able to cooperate to make decisions, and P.Z.

had a strong relationship with both Damian and Anna. The trial court noted that P.Z. had a 

relationship with Anna’s longtime friend, Beata Trzcinski, who planned to move-in with Anna and 

share expenses after the divorce was finalized.

¶ 29 As to the factors of each parent’s level of participation in past significant decision-making 

and any prior agreement or course of conduct between the parents related to decision-making and 

caretaking functions for the child, the trial court stated that Anna had “taken the lead on significant 

decisions and caretaking,” but Damian was reasonably involved, especially of late. There was no 

evidence that P.Z. had special needs, and his day-to-day needs were met by both parents.

¶ 30 The trial court could not determine the distance between the parents’ residences, or the 

difficulty and cost of transporting P.Z., because it was not clear where Damian would reside post 

judgment. The court presumed he would reside close enough to enable ongoing participation in 

P.Z.’s daily life. The trial court noted that Anna’s work schedule presented “some difficulty” 

because it began at 6:30 a.m., but the parties currently addressed scheduling issues by relying on 

a trusted babysitter as well as before- and after-school programming. 

¶ 31 Although there was evidence of disagreements between the parties, the trial court did not 

find that the disagreements weighed heavily on either party’s ability to make decisions or parent 

P.Z. Thus, the trial court concluded that both parties were “perfectly capable of facilitating and 

encouraging a close and continuing relationship with P.Z. and the other parent.” It also found that 

both parties were willing and able to place P.Z.’s needs ahead of their own. On a positive note, the 

trial court found that the parties had been able to fashion a parenting time schedule and continue 

to reside in the marital residence during the course of the litigation. 
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 9 - 

¶ 32 Remaining factors were either not applicable or the relevant evidence had already been 

discussed, and the trial court did not find any non-express factor to be relevant.

¶ 33 Having concluded its review of the best interest factors, the trial court decided that Anna 

should have the majority of parenting time and that Damian should have significant parenting time. 

The trial court was “primarily concerned with providing stability during the school year.” The 

evidence did not show where Damian’s next residence would be, and there was no way to know 

how far it would be from P.Z.’s school or Anna’s home. Furthermore, Anna had spent more time 

as P.Z.’s primary caretaker. While acknowledging that Damian was willing and able to manage 

significant parenting time, the trial court noted that “equal parenting time is problematic and trial 

courts have been instructed to be cautious when entering 50/50 parenting time schedules,” 

explaining that shifting children between households deprives them of a home base.

¶ 34 The trial court found that, although the parties were not generally contentious, an equal 

parenting time schedule would require a great deal of back-and-forth and effectively deprive P.Z.

of a home base. The trial court found this particularly concerning during the school year, where 

the parties would have to juggle work and school schedules, extracurricular activities, childcare, 

and a daily routine of packing backpacks and lunches, doing projects, and more. As such, the trial 

court found that alternating between Anna and Damian’s residence every few days was not in 

P.Z.’s best interest.

¶ 35 Accordingly, the trial court ordered that Damian’s parenting time would occur on 

Thursdays beginning at 5 p.m., continuing to when he would take P.Z. to school Friday morning. 

Every other week, it would continue until Sunday at 6:30 p.m., or Monday at 6:30 p.m. if there 

was no school on Monday. During the summer, the trial court set parenting time as alternating 

between the parties every Friday at 5 p.m., beginning the first week of June. Holidays and school 
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 10 - 

breaks were likewise divided evenly in gross time awarded, excepting Mother’s Day and Father’s 

Day, which were awarded solely to Anna and Damian, respectively. The trial court calculated that 

Damian had an annual total of 119 overnights before calculating holiday schedules, school breaks, 

and vacations. The trial court concluded that the parenting time allowed both parents significant 

time with P.Z. while prioritizing stability during the school year.

¶ 36 This timely appeal followed.

¶ 37 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 38 At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in allocating the majority of parenting 

time during the school year to Anna. We accord great deference to the trial court in the allocation 

of parenting time because it is in the best position to assess witness credibility and determine the 

child’s best interests. In re Marriage of Whitehead, 2018 IL App (5th) 170380, ¶ 15. We will 

overturn a trial court’s ruling on parenting time only if it is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence or is an abuse of discretion. Id.; Jameson v. Williams, 2020 IL App (3d) 200048, ¶ 53. A 

judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when the opposite conclusion is 

apparent or when the judgment is arbitrary, unreasonable, or not based on the evidence: in other 

words, if the record contains evidence supporting the judgment, we should affirm. Vician v. Vician, 

2016 IL App (2d) 160022, ¶ 27. An abuse of discretion occurs when a ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, 

or unreasonable. In re Marriage of Benink, 2018 IL App (2d) 170175, ¶ 32.

¶ 39 Damian argues that the trial court erred in allocating parenting time in a manner that 

differed substantially from the parties’ prejudgment 50/50 parenting schedule. He argues that both 

the statutory and non-statutory facts weighed in favor of a 50/50 split of parenting time and that 

the trial court erred in relying on case law cautioning against a 50/50 split. He argues that, because 

he and Anna are able to cooperate to promote P.Z.’s best interests, a 50/50 split was reasonable, 
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 11 - 

and the trial court’s decision effectively transformed a general caution toward a 50/50 split into a 

near-absolute prohibition.

¶ 40 Moreover, Damian argues that the trial court’s award of the majority of parenting time to 

Anna was error because the evidence did not support that the award promoted P.Z.’s stability 

during the school year. Damian argues that, on the one hand, the trial court disregarded his ability 

to provide P.Z.stability despite assuming that he would reside within close proximity to the marital 

residence. On the other hand, the court assumed Anna would remain in the marital residence when 

it was unclear whether she could afford to do so. Last, Damian argues that the trial court’s award 

was error because Anna’s work schedule, which begin at 6:30 a.m., would provide less flexibility 

to manage P.Z.’s before-school schedule.

¶ 41 Anna responds that the trial court’s decision was based on the evidence. She points to

evidence adduced at trial, including that Anna generally performed the caretaking functions for 

P.Z. in the two years preceding trial and that she took the lead on significant decision-making for 

P.Z. Anna further points to the trial court’s determination that awarding the marital home to Anna 

was important to P.Z.’s routine and future success in school.

¶ 42 We hold that the trial court’s allocation of parenting time was neither against the manifest 

weight of the evidence nor an abuse of discretion. Courts shall allocate parenting time according 

to the child’s best interests. 750 ILCS 5/602.7(a) (West 2020). In determining the child’s best 

interests, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to the following 

statutory factors: (1) the wishes of each parent; (2) the wishes of the child; (3) the amount of time 

each parent spent performing caretaking functions for the child in the 24 months preceding the 

petition for allocation of parental responsibilities; (4) any prior agreement or course of conduct 

between the parents for the child’s caretaking; (5) the child’s interactions or relationship with the 
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 12 - 

parents, siblings, or others persons who may affect the child’s best interests; (6) the child’s 

adjustment to their home, school, and community; (7) the mental and physical health of all 

individuals involved; (8) the child’s needs; (9) the distance between the parents’ residences, the 

cost and difficulty of transporting the child, each parent’s and the child’s schedules, and the ability 

of the parents to cooperate in the arrangement; (10) whether a restriction on parenting time is 

appropriate; (11) the physical violence of threat thereof by a parent against the child; (12) the 

willingness and ability of each parent to place the needs of the child ahead of their own; (13) the 

willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing 

relationship between the other parents and the child; (14) the occurrence of abuse against the child 

or other members of the household; (15) whether one of the parents is a convicted sex offender or 

lives with a convicted sex offender; (16) the terms of a parent’s military family-care plan if a parent 

is deployed as a member of the United States Armed Forces; and (17) any other factor the court 

find relevant. 750 ILCS 5/602.7(b)(1) (West 2020); see In re Marriage of Virgin, 2021 IL App 

(3d) 190650, ¶ 44.

¶ 43 Illinois courts have cautioned against 50/50 allocations of parenting time. E.g., In re 

Marriage of Trapkus, 2022 IL App (3d) 190631, ¶ 35. Where the record showed that parents had 

too much animosity to cooperate, 50/50 arrangements have been set aside, but where the parties 

were reasonably loving and capable parents who were sufficiently able to cooperate despite each 

having argued the other was less capable, a 50/50 arrangement could be upheld. In re Marriage of 

Virgin, 2021 IL App (3d) 190650, ¶ 47. Caution against 50/50 arrangements derives, at least in 

part, from the belief that frequently shifting children between houses is detrimental; “[c]hildren 

need a home base.” In re Marriage of Swanson, 275 Ill. App. 3d 519, 524 (1995). Moreover, a 

“50/50 arrangement is not a substitute for making a difficult choice between two good parents, 
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 13 - 

especially where such an arrangement may add to the child’s insecurity, which is frequently 

experienced by children of divorce.” In re Marriage of Virgin, 2021 IL App (3d) 190650, ¶ 52. 

¶ 44 Here, the trial court reviewed all of the section 602.7(b) factors in reaching its decision. 

The trial court correctly concluded that several factors were either inapplicable (factors 11, 14, 15, 

and 16) or the parties did not present evidence on the factors (factors 2 and 10).

¶ 45 As to the remaining factors, the trial court’s findings were based on the evidence. The 

record supported that several factors were substantially neutral or inconclusive. Both parents 

desired and agreed upon significant parenting time with P.Z., disagreeing only on parenting time 

during the school year (factor 1). P.Z.’s relationship with other persons (factor 5) was largely 

neutral in that both Anna and Damian’s families lived in Poland, and he would be able to maintain 

relationships with both families. However, the trial court implicitly found that the factor slightly 

favored Anna in that P.Z. had known Beata his whole life and that Beata planned to move in with 

Anna after the divorce. As to P.Z.’s adjustment to his home, school, and community (factor 6), 

there was no dispute that P.Z. was doing well in school and had friends in the neighborhood. The 

court reasonably stated that any judgment was going to upset P.Z.’s routine because, at the time of

trial, both parents were living at the marital residence with P.Z., but Damian would reside 

elsewhere postjudgment. Regarding P.Z.’s needs (factor 8), the record supported that P.Z. had no 

special needs and that both parents met his day-to-day needs.

¶ 46 The trial court found that factor 9, which included the distance between the parties’ 

residences, was an inconclusive factor because it did not know where Damian would reside 

postjudgment. The trial court noted that Anna’s work schedule presented some difficulty because 

she began at 6:30 a.m., prior to P.Z.’s school day beginning at 8:30 a.m. However, it reasonably 

found that the parties had a trusted babysitter and cited before- and after-school programming. We 
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 14 - 

note that while Anna’s work started two hours before P.Z.’s school day, Damian’s work ended an 

hour and a half after the school day, presenting a substantially similar scheduling issue for both 

parents.

¶ 47 The last neutral factors were factors 12 and 13. The record supported the trial court’s 

findings that both parents were willing to foster a close and continuing relationship between P.Z. 

and the other parent and that both parents were willing to put P.Z.’s needs ahead of their own. Both 

Damian and Anna expressed a desire for P.Z. to have a close, continuing relationship with the 

other and ultimately thought the other was a good parent.

¶ 48 Only factor 7 favored Damian. The record supported that both Damian and P.Z. were 

healthy. Although Anna initially testified that she was healthy, she later testified to having lupus 

and epilepsy. However, her testimony also supported that she was effectively managing her 

conditions on her current work schedule, and the record did not show her conditions prevented her 

from caring for P.Z. The trial court reasonably did not dwell on this factor.

¶ 49 Two factors favored Anna. Regarding the amount of time each parent spent caretaking in 

the prior 24 months (factor 3), the trial court reasonably concluded that Damian’s caretaking 

activities began more recently and that he had relied on Anna to handle many caretaking activities 

prior to litigation. The record supported that Anna was the parent who had primarily cared for P.Z.: 

she prepared meals for him, scheduled his appointments, bought him clothes, registered him for 

school, and helped him with his homework. When P.Z. needed help or support, like after wetting 

his bed at night, he would always go to Anna.

¶ 50 The trial court also found that the parties’ prior course of conduct regarding P.Z.’s 

caretaking (factor 4) favored Anna because she took the lead on significant parenting decisions 

and caretaking. The record supported this conclusion for largely the same reasons that factor 3 
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 15 - 

favored Anna. We note that this factor may also contemplate consideration of the parties’ prior 

50/50 parenting arrangement. Although P.Z. was adjusted to that schedule, it took place while both 

Damian and Anna were residing at the marital residence with P.Z., and therefore the arrangement 

had limited relevance to P.Z.’s best interests postjudgment, when Damian would be residing 

elsewhere. Anna testified that, when they were all living at the marital residence, she was “always 

there” for P.Z., and “whenever he needs something, he will always find me.”

¶ 51 In allocating parenting time, the trial court was “particularly concerned with providing 

stability during the school year.” Stability was a reasonable and important concern with respect to 

P.Z.’s best interests. The trial court’s decision sought to promote stability by minimizing the 

disruption that frequent back-and-forth exchanges would have imposed on P.Z.’s school week. 

Moreover, the record supported the trial court’s conclusion that Anna had spent more time as P.Z.’s

primary caretaker. Specifically, during the school year, Anna had taken care of all manner of 

school-related activity for P.Z., from getting him clothed and fed to helping with his homework, 

and P.Z. had been doing very well in school. Thus, the record supported that Anna promoted P.Z.’s 

stability. When a stable school schedule was not at issue, such as over summer or during school 

breaks, the trial court provided the parties equal parenting time.

¶ 52 For several reasons, we reject Damian’s argument that the trial court’s decision was 

speculative in that it assumed Anna would be able to remain in the marital residence and thus 

provide P.Z. greater stability while refusing to assume that Damian would reside nearby in a stable 

environment. First, the trial court did not assume that Anna would be able to permanently reside 

in the marital residence but, in fact, ordered that Anna obtain financing within six months and that, 

if she did not or could not, she was to list the residence for sale on or before November 16, 2022. 

Nor was it unreasonable to let Anna at least try to remain in the marital residence—she was 
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 16 - 

employed, she was to receive maintenance and child support totaling $593.17 a month, and she 

had Beata as an expected roommate to help split expenses. Second, Damian’s brief incorrectly 

frames the trial court’s decision as awarding Anna the majority of parenting time because she was 

to receive the marital home. In fact, the trial court awarded Anna the marital home at least in part 

because it had decided to award her a majority of the parenting time. To wit, the trial court stated, 

“Because Anna is assigned the majority of parenting time during the school year, [P.Z.] will be 

most stable if she maintains the marital residence.” Last, it is undisputed that the trial court did not 

know where Damian would reside postjudgment, and it was not error to consider this unknown 

given that one of the best interest factors is the distance between residences and the cost and 

difficulty of transporting the child.

¶ 53 We also reject defendant’s contention that the trial court’s decision transformed caution 

against 50/50 parenting-time arrangements into a prohibition of the same. The trial court’s decision 

was based on its findings that Anna spent more time as P.Z.’s primary caretaker and that an equal 

parenting schedule would disrupt P.Z.’s stability during the school year. The former finding was 

simply an application of statutory best interest factors, and the latter was consistent with prior 

rationales cautioning against 50/50 allocations of parenting time. See In re Marriage of Virgin, 

2021 IL App (3d) 190650, ¶ 52 (shifting children between households is detrimental because

children need a home base). In short, the trial court based its decision on the facts of the case, 

mindful of the effect that more frequent custody exchanges would have on P.Z.’s best interests

during the school year. 

¶ 54 Although Damian spends significant time in his brief illustrating the facts of the two cases 

cited by the trial court in its decision (In re Marriage of Virgin, 2021 IL App (3d) 190650, and 

In re Marriage of Swanson, 275 Ill. App. 3d 519 (1995)), his case illustrations are unavailing. 
2023 IL App (2d) 220216-U 

- 17 - 

Notably, the trial court did not illustrate those cases nor make direct comparisons to their facts in 

reaching its decision—it cited them, appropriately, only for general propositions of law. Damian’s 

reliance on In re Marriage of Perez, 2015 IL App (3d) 140876, is also unhelpful. There, the trial 

court granted a 50/50 allocation of parenting time (id. ¶ 13), and the appellate court affirmed

“based on the specific facts presented” (id. ¶ 33). The Perez court acknowledged that 50/50 

schedules were viewed with caution, but it gave deference to the trial court, noting that the parties 

lived in close proximity to one another and that their current schedule was working well. Id. ¶ 33. 

There, the child’s best interest was the maximum involvement of both parties. Id. ¶¶ 28, 32. Perez 

provides meager guidance on whether to reverse an unequal parenting schedule when the trial 

court finds that stability is in the child’s best interest. 

¶ 55 In sum, the trial court reasonably focused on P.Z.’s stability during the school year, and 

the record supported that the parenting schedule promoted his stabilty. The parenting schedule 

provides P.Z. more time during the school year with Anna, who was his primary caregiver. The 

schedule during the school year also provides P.Z. with a “home base,” which Illinois courts have 

recognized as in a child’s best interests. As such, the trial court’s allocation of the majority of 

parenting time to Anna during the school year was not against the manifest weight of the evidence 

nor an abuse of discretion. 

¶ 56 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 57 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the McHenry County Circuit Court. Due 

to an error in the appellate court clerk’s office, this decision was filed after the decision’s 150-day 

deadline. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 311(a)(5) (eff. July 1, 2018).

¶ 58 Affirmed.