No. 2--06--0749

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE AP PE LLATE COU RT OF ILLIN OIS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ In re MARRIAGE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court JAMES R. MATCHEN, ) of Mc He nr y Co un ty. ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) and ) No. 95--DV--233 ) JEANETTE MATCHEN, ) Honorab le ) Michael W. Feetterer, Responde nt-Appe llant. ) Judge , Pres idin g.

_____________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE CALL UM delive

red the o pinion of t

he court : Responde nt, Jeanette M atchen, timely appeals the judg ment of the

circuit court of McHenry County denying her petition for leave to r emove the part ies' two minor chil dren fr

om Ill inois to Wisconsin. On appeal, respondent argue s that the trial cou rt's fin dings ar e aga inst the ma

nifest weight of the ev idence. For the f

ollowing reasons , we aff

irm. I. BACKGROUND Respondent

testified that she and pe titio ner, James Matchen, divorced in August 1995. Pursuant to the judgment of dissolution, the parties shared joint custody of their three children. At the time of the removal hearing, Jeremiah, 20 y ears old, lived with petitioner, and Jeffrey ,14 years old, and Jessica,12 years old, lived with respondent. Both parties and the children reside in McHenry County.No. 2--06--0749

-2-

InAugust 2002, respondent met a nd fell in love with Tom Mayer, a retired electronics engineer and professional inventor . After working i n Hoffma n Estates for 22 y ears, Mayer r

etired to 88 acres of land in the Wisconsin Dells area that are he ld in atrust for him and his brother. The land has been in his family since 1955. In 2004, respondent petitioned to remove Jeffre y and Jessica to live with her and Mayer at his home in the Wisconsin D ells. Respondent and Maye r are engag ed; however, they have d elayed set ting a w eddin g date, pendi ng the reso lution of the petition for removal

. The tria

l court he ld a hear

ing on the

removal petition on

August 2 4 and 25, 200 5, September 2, 2005, and January 11, 2006. Responde nt, a house cleaner, testified that sh e has been self-employ ed for two ye ars. She works approxima

tely 15 hours p er wee

k. Accor ding to r esponde nt's tax r eturn, he r total g ross income for 2004 was $7,347. She testified that she earns approximately $690 per month, has approxima

tely $1,846.49per month

inexpenses, and does not have sufficient funds to pay her bills. Ac co rd in gl y, Mayer pa

ys respondent' s entire rent--$750 per month--and helps her pay for gas and

car repairs. Respondent testified, however, tha t she believes it is important to be home with her children when they a

re not at school-- to supervise them and give them the stability and comfort of

anadult presence. Respondent's work schedule permits her to be home if the children are sic k, as wellas when they le ave for and come home from school. When the children g et home from school, respondent

prepares their after-school snac ks, helps the m with homework, organizes their belon gings for the next day, and

takes them to their activities. She also spends time with them playing g ames

onthe computer, biking, or going for walks. Respondent

testifie d that it

was more difficult for her to do man y of those thin gs when s he was p revio usly empl oyed full time . Alt hough respondent has looked in the newspape r for other job opportunities, she testified that she does not have theNo. 2--06--0749

-3-

qualifications for the postings and that she has not ser

iously looked for alternative emp loy ment in the past two year

s. Respondent

further testified

that she currently r

ents a run-down, three-story home, one block fromHighwa

y 12 0 in McHe

nry . She testi f

ied that there is constant traffic in front of her house. Until rec ent

ly , Jef fre y and Je ssica shared a

n attic lof

t; howeve r, to giv e them the ir own rooms, respondent

now sleeps on the couch and Jessica has moved into responde

nt's for mer room. Respondent

testifie d that her

landlord is nosy an d comes to the house unannounced. He peers throu gh windows and tries the door before he knocks. The c hildren find

him "cre epy ." As a r

esult, they shut the blinds, lock the doors, and stay inside beca

use respondent does not want him in their presence. The house is musty, and the air qua lity poor. Respondent testified that she soug ht alterna te housing, but could not afford it. She testified t hat the McHenry

County Housing Department

was not helpful to her in finding new housing, although she c onceded that she had not used it as a resource in six ye ars. Mayer's Wisconsin home sits on h is 88-acre prope

rty in a very quiet nei ghborhood. I

t is a three-bedroom, loft house with a full basement. The property has a pond for swimming and a shooting gallery

where the child

ren can shoot cla y pi geons a

nd enga ge in ta rget pr actice . After s ome remod eling, the children would have their own bedrooms and respondent would ha ve a bedroom as well. Since b ecoming involved with May er, respondent and the children go to Wisconsin every other weekend. When there, they spend significant time outdoors. Respondent

testified that Jeffrey is intere sted in hunting. In Wisconsin, he hunts, sh oots, pl ays paintball, drives a bulldozer, rides go-carts, and fishes. She testified that he could not do many of these things near their home in McHen

ry , althoug

h she late r conce ded that her curr

ent home i sNo. 2--06--0749

-4-

within a mile of a

lake, tha t th e child

ren fish at that lake with petitioner, and that petitioner occasionally

takes Jeffrey shooting

and paint

ball ing in McHenry

County. While Jeffrey

is not

curren tly p lay ing any sports, he

used to play socce

r and respondent was his soccer coac h for three ye ars. Sports ar

e availa ble to him in

Wisconsin, should he w

ish to pa rt ic ip at e. Je ff

re y al so en

jo ys playing gui tar , sw im mi ng, and vi deo gam es. InWisconsin, an entertainment section was built on the heated porch for video game s, for television, and as a place for Jeffrey to play his guitar. Inthe past, Jessica played basketba ll and was in the school band. She currently pa rticipates in chorus , arts and

crafts, painting , and dra

wing. She

enjoys swimming

and catc hing fr ogs, an d is interested in flora a

nd fauna . Accor

ding to r esponde nt, all of t

hose act ivit ies are ava ilable in Wisconsin. Mayer built an art gallery

on the porch

for Jessica to keep her crafts, paints, brushes, and easels, and she can leave her art mater ials set up there. Respondent stated that Jessica cannot leave her materia ls set up a

nd work on

arts and cra fts in her cu rrent ho me beca

use the on

ly p ossible location, the basement , is mu st y, a nd Jessica has asthma. However, respondent concede d that Jessica has a desk set up at petitioner's home where she works on arts and crafts. Jeffrey will be a freshman

at McHen

ry West High

School and recei

ves A and B gra des in his classes

. Accord

ing to re spondent, the hig h school in the Wisconsin Dells area of fers the same classes , including Spanish, that Jeffrey would take i n McHen ry. In addit ion, Wisc onsi n Dell s High School offers German class es and higher -level hist ory class es. Th e class size s at th e two h igh schoo ls are approximately the same . Jessica w

ill be in the

seventh g

rade an d perfor ms wel l academically . The middle school in the Wisconsin Dells has a slightly smaller c lass size than her school in McHen

ry . Certain

extracur ricular activitie s in McHen

ry may be cut for budge

tary reasons . Respondent

testified that the art classes at Jessica's school might be cut if a r efe r end um fai ls . InNo. 2--06--0749

-5-

contras t, art clas ses would remain a vailable to her in Wis consin. Whi le it costs $200 to enroll Jeffrey inthe high

school in M cHenry

, it would c ost $20 to enr oll h im in the Wisc onsin Dell s school. Si mi la rl y, while it would cos t $115 to en roll Jessic a in the Mc Henry middle sch

ool, it woul d cost $20 to enroll her in the Wisco n sin Dells school. Petitioner, however, pay s half of the school registration

fees for both childre n. Respondent testified that Jeffrey spe nds time with two friends inMcHenry , but thathe has an outgoing personality , is likeable, and would have no trouble making friend s in Wisconsin. Respondent testified that Jessica spends time with primarily one fr iend i n Mc He nr y, but that she is "a very fr ie ndly bubbly

little girl. She is always che erful. She makes friends everywhere she goes ." Jeff rey and Jessica ha

ve extende d family

in both loc ations. Re spondent' s brother lives in Oxford, Wisconsin, approximately 10 minutes away from Mayer

's home. He is married with two children--a

son and a daughter, ages 22 a

nd 18 respectively . Jeffrey goes pa intballing with his co

usin andun cle. Resp ondent' s parent s also live in Oxford. R

esponde nt testifie d that, pr

io r to he r relation ship with Mayer, she a nd the children saw her parents and brother onc e a ye ar, but now they

see them more regularly . She testified that the c hildren s pend the n

ight at their gr

andpare nts' hou se if they are in Wisconsin for l onger than a weekend and that they try to see re spondent's family a s much as possible while there. InMcHenry , Jeffrey and Jessica have a good relationship with Jeremiah. Respondent testified that she was not concerned that a move would affect their relationship with Jeremiah. Two of re sp on de nt 's si st er s a nd th ei r c hi ld re n l iv e a pp ro xi ma te ly 5 to 10 mi nutes away from r espon dent's home in McHenry. Jeffr

ey and Jessica maintain relationships with their aunts and cousins and see themat least t

wice pe r month an

d sometime s twic e per week. Respondent's third sister and herNo. 2--06--0749

-6-

children live appr oximately 15 to 20 minu

tes away from them

inMcHenry

County, and

Jessica and Jeffrey see them once every

other month. Petitioner also has family in the McHe nry are a, including

a brother and h is two children, and a sister and her daughter in Marengo. Both parties ag ree that Jessica and Jeffrey a

re close to a

ll of their family members i

n the McH enry

area. Accordin

g to responde nt, it is important that the children continue to maintai nthose re lationship s if they move to Wisconsin. Respondent

testified that Mayer

makes her

happy and more

relaxed and that

her rel ationship with Jeffrey and Jessica has thereby be en enhanced. Respondent testified that, although the childre n initially were not happy

about her relationship with May er, their relationship with him is much improved and they get along well

wit h him. Respondent testified that she does not see how her relation ship with May

er could continue if she does not move to the Wisconsin Dells. She testified that she has not discussed with Mayer whe ther he would terminate his financial support in the event the pe tition were denied. If that we re to happen, however, she would need to obtain f ull-tim e employment

to meet her

living expenses. If she move d to Wisconsin, she would not work b ecause Mayer would provide for her and the children. She would not have to worr y about leaving

the children home alone or getting

a full -time job a

nd baby sitters. She testifi ed that th e move wo uld make her happier and more stable, which would enhance the children's quality

of life. She believes that the children would also benefit from the move in that they wo uld be ab le to more

easily particip ate in activit

ies they enjoy , be close

to their g randpar ents, and have mor

e quality time with respondent

because she would

be avail able to th em at all times. Fin ally , respond

ent testif ied it would be better for the children to have a stable ho me to live i

n, instea d of const antly traveling back and forth between Wisconsin and Illinois. For

example, she explained that sometimes the childrenNo. 2--06--0749

-7-

are tired and do not want to get in th e car f

or the tri p home fr om Wisconsin . Never

theless, regar

dless of the outcome of her removal petition, respondent testified that she inten ds to conti

nue trav eling to Wisconsin with the children every othe r weekend. Mayer described his relationship with Jeffrey as "exceptional" and

testified that he gets along "very very we ll" with Jessica. His rela tio nship with respondent is "exceptionally g ood," and he explained that there i s a not iceable differe nce between her

mood in McH enry

and her m

ood in Wisconsin, where she just re laxes and o pens up. H e testifi ed that, i n his opinion, moving

to Wisconsin

would abs olutely

benefit responde nt and the childre n, in terms

of finances, schools, and the pristine, peaceful setting, and because the children would be approximately se ven minutes away fromtheir only

survivi ng grandparents. May er agreed that it would be difficult for him and respondent

to maintain a successful marriage if they could not live under the

same roof. When asked whether he would consider moving back to I llinois, he testified: "A: Well I would have to say where I live now it' s been a 30 year dr

eam and I have been working on this very

very hard for the second half of my life to develop what I have

. It would be a

n extremel

y di fficult decision. It would be hard. I suppose if I had

to -- I can 't sell the property be cause it's in a trust. It can't be divide d or sold so certain ly I would like

to

re si de so me wh er e i n a ru ra l a re a. I pr et ty m uc h h ad my f il l o f t he ci ty. Q: Wo uld t here be any place i n Illin ois t hat you wo uld co nsid er liv ing? A: More likely it would be bac k in the farmlands again south. I enjoy the south." Mayer testified that, if the petition for removal weredenied, h e did not intend to break off the engag eme ntor cut of

f his rela tionship wi

th the chi ldren; his

primary goal wa s to ensur

e that th e children remain happy r

egardless of

the outcome of the removal proceedings. However, he testifiedNo. 2--06--0749

-8-

that the fina ncial as sistance

he provid

es to res pondent would be dif

ficult to maintai

n if the petition were denied. Cu rr en tl y, pet itioner vi s its with Jeffrey and Jessica every other weekend from 3 p.m. on Friday to 6 p.m. on Sunday, and every Tuesday or T

hursday evening from 3 to 7 p.m. Respondent testified that petitioner exe rcises his e very-other-weekend vis itation "rel igiously." Petitioner testifie d that the parties have been

able to manage visitation issues smoothly and with flexibility; howe ver, there have been relatively minor issues that have arisen since the frequent trips to Wisconsin began. Petitioner regularly exercises four weeks of visitation with the children in the summer, in two-week interva ls; however, he often wo rks during t hose wee ks. Pursua

nt to the dis solution jud

gment, petitioner also may visit with the children on alterna te C hristmas ho lidays and alterna te spring breaks. Respondent testified that petitioner exercises four days of his Christmas visitation, but that he does not exercise h

is spring break vi sitatio n. Petitioner testified that he does not exercise the spring break vis itation be cause he has to wor

k and the c

hildren prefer

to spend their

spring breaks in Wisconsin. Occasionally, petitioner stops by respondent's home for extra visits and Jeffrey has ridden his bike to petitioner's house. Petitioner testified that, when he is with the childre n, they typically run errands, such as grocery shopping, followed by

board games or cards, trips to the movies, or ca mpin g. Petitioner cooks them bre akfast a

nd cooks them a big

dinner on Sunday

evening before he takes them home. He testifie d that Jeff

rey loves to pl ay pa in tb al l, sh oo t, an d h an g o ut wi th fr ie nd s. Je ss ic a e nj oys color ing, puzzles, spending time with him, fishi ng, and ridin g her b ike. Jessic a also en gage s in arts and crafts when spending time with him. H e testified that the children participate in numerous outdoor activities with him, including fishing, swi mming at the community pool, paintball, andNo. 2--06--0749

-9-

shoot ing. When it snows, petitioner takes the m to hills, wh ere the y g o sledding . Most of th ese activities take place in the McHenry area. Respondent

testified that petitioner c ame to watch most, but no t all, of Jef

frey 's socc er games. She testified that

his attendance increased after she wanted to move to Wisconsin. She testified that he did not attend open houses at the children's schools, attended only one pare

nt-teacher conference inthe past five years, a

nd does not ask respondent for the c hildren' s report

cards or school schedules. Respondent

later acknowledged that she advised pe titioner that it was unnecessary for him to attend the parent-teacher confer

ences because the children wer e doing well in school and that he sees t heir report cards be cause

the children give him copies. Respondent testified that petitioner hasattended all of Jessica's band recitals and choral conc erts. She described Jeffrey and pe

titioner as "buds" and Jessica as "daddy's girl." If her peti tion for r emoval is g

ranted, responde

nt propose s that the v

isi tation schedule be altered to allow petitioner a full week of visitation at spring break, eve ry othe r year , and possib ly another week of visitation in the summer. In or der to make up for

the one w eekday

that he wo

uld lose, she suggested

that he could speak with Jeffrey and Jessica by

phone during the week and then, if a three-day

weekend fell on a weekend he wa s to have the childr en, he c ould

have the extra day with them. In addition, instead of the usual 6 p.m. Sunday drop-off time, he could drop them off at 7 p.m. The trip to the Wisconsin Dells from McHenry is approximately three hours long , so she proposed that they each dr ive half way for the d

rop-off s a nd p ick-ups. She believed that the extended driving time would have a positive effect on the chi ldren's relationship with petitioner because they would hav e his full attention in the car and they would be able to communicate for that hour and 30 minutes each way

.No. 2--06--0749

-10-

Petitioner, however , testified that the three hours spent driving to and from Wisconsin on alternatingweeken

ds constitu

tes time he will be pay

ing atte ntion to tra

ffic and driving , not time spent with the children. While the time in the car might be peaceful, he disagre es with respondent that it constitutes quality time with the children. He does not think that the children will enjoy the six hours in the car every

other weekend--three

hours to Wisconsin and three hours back in a 48-hour period--and

he does not

think that i

t is in their

best inter ests. He testified that the children have gone to McHenry

schools their entire lives and that they both have friends there. He is concerned that the McHenry schools are cut

ting bac k on their after- school pr

ograms but is othe

rwisepleased with the education that the schools have provided. Moreover, the cutbacks would not affect the children, as they are not enrolled in any of the activities that would be eliminated. Petitioner is familia r with respondent's McHenry

home and testified that, while the home is closeto Highw ay

120, the c

hildren a re neve r outside by t he road. He testif

ied that the home h as three bedrooms but one bedroom is being used a s an of

fice. M oreov er, he t estif

ied th at Je ssica 's asthma is under control as long as she takes her medica tion. Petitioner testified that he obj ects to the removal

because he does not feel that he will be able t

o see th e childrenas often. As he explained, with the elimination of the weekday visitation, he will see them 52 fewer days per y

ear. He feels that, as Jeffrey

and Jessica get older, they will startdeveloping their own lives and bec ome busy and will not wantto make th e trip ba ck to I llinois eve

ry other we ekend. T

hus, it will b ecome harder for him to be a part of

their live s. Petitione

r testifie d, "I

just want t he kid s to b e happ y. That's my only purpose I gue ss." He does not believe that the children would be as happy if the removal petition were granted. Both children testified in camera that they did not

wish to move to Wisconsin.No. 2--06--0749

-11-

OnJune 29, 2006, the trial court denied respondent's petition for removal. The court noted that it applied

and bala nced all releva nt factors includ

ing, but n ot limited to , the facto rs in In re Marriag e of Eckert , 119 Ill. 2d 316 (1988), and found that removal wa s not in the children's be s t interest s. Specific al ly, the cour t found tha

t it was unc lear tha

t a move to

Wisconsin would likely enhance the quality of life for respondent or the children and found that the children have strong ties t o family, friend s, and the McHenr y c ommunity . The cou

rt found t

hat, "w hile [resp ondent' s] proposed visitation schedule appears reasonable at first blush, the court will not make Jeffrey

and Jessica ch an ge sc ho ol s, le av e t he ir fr ie nd s a nd mu ch of th ei r f am il y, sit in a car for

six hours every other weeken d in order to see the ir fathe

r, and el iminate th eir

time with their father during the week, simply because Mr. May

er chooses not to move if he can avoid it." The court found that the negative aspects of the children's current

living sit uation in M cHenry

exist, in lar ge part, due to respo ndent 's decisionto work only 15 hours per week. Although the cour t a cknowle dged th at marri age wo uld provide respondent

with improved financial security , it determined that respondent and May

er were not unable

to make a

life tog ether in

Illinois but tha

t May er "doe s not want t

o live in Illinois, if he

can avoid it." The court found there was no evidenc e to suggest that respondent's motives in seeking removal w ere to frustrate petitioner's visitation, or that petitioner's objection to the removal wa s motivated by any thing other than genuine concer n for his relat ionship wit

h the children. Respondent appeals

. II . STANDARD OF REVIEW Section609 (a) of t he Il linois Ma rriag e and Dis solution of Marriage Act (A ct) (750 IL CS 5/609(a) (West 2004 ), which

gover ns remova

l petitions , provide s:No. 2--06--0749

-12- "The cour t may g rant leave *** to any

party having

custody of any

minor child or children to remove such child or

childre n from Illinois whe

never su ch approval is in the

best interest s of such child o r children. The burd en of proving tha

t such re moval is in t

he best interest s of

such chil d or child

ren is on t he party seeking removal ." 750 I

LCS 5/6 09(a) (

West 2004). Thus, the para

mount ques tion in a re

moval ca se is whet

her the move is in th e childr en's be st interest s. Eckert , 119 Ill. 2d at 325. This determination must be made on a case-by- case ba sis, with consideration

given to the circumstances of each case

. Eckert , 119 Ill. 2d at 326. Nevertheless, there

are certain, nonexclusi

ve fact ors a tria l court should consi der in determin ing whe ther re moval is in the c hildren's best interests. In re Marriage of Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2d 498, 522 (2003). Thes e include: (1) whether the

proposed move is likely to enhance the general quality

of life for both the custodial parent and the children; (2) themotives of the custo dial par

ent, as to whether the removal is merely a r

use intended to defeat or frustrate visitation; (3) the motives of the noncustodial parent in resisting removal; (4) the effect on the nonc ustodial parent's visitation rights; and (5) whether a realisti c and reasonable visitation schedule can be reached if the move is permitted. Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2 d at 522-2 3; Eckert , 119 Ill. 2d at 326-27. Non e of these f actors is controlling and the weight to be accorded each fac

tor will vary depe

nding on the fac ts of the case. Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2 d at 523; In re Marriage of Johnson , 352 Ill. App. 3d 605, 613 (2004). A trial court's determination of what is in the children's be st interes ts will no t be reversed unless that determination is against the manifest weight of the e vidence and

it appears that a man

ifest injustice has occurred. Collingbourne , 204 I ll. 2d at 52 1-22. A de cision is a gainst t he manif est weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion is clea rly evident

or where the co urt's f

indi ngsNo. 2--06--0749

-13-

are unreasonable, ar bi tr ar y, and not based on any of the evidence. In re

Marriage of Main , 361 I ll. App. 3d 983, 989 (2005). The trial court is in the best position to assess and evaluate t he parties ' tempera ments, persona

lities, an d capab ilities, a

nd the pre sumption in

favor of the result reached by the trial court is always strong and compelling in a removal case. Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2d at 522. When applying

the manif

est-weight standard, we are mindful that " [a] reviewing court may not overturn a judgment merely

because the reviewing cour t might disagree with the judgment, or, had the reviewing court been the trier of fact, might have come to a diff erent conclusio n." People v. A Parcel of Proper

ty Co mmonly Known As 1945 Nort

h 31st Stre et, Dec atur, Ma con County

, Illi nois , 217 Ill. 2d 481, 510 (2005). III. AN ALYS IS Respo ndent chall enges t he tri al cou rt's findings on the first, fourth, and fifth Eckert

factor s,

as well as its

ultimate conclusion that removal is not in the children's best interests. First, respondent argues that the trial court erred in concluding that it was unclea r that the move to Wisconsin would likely enhance the quality

of life for respondent, Jeffrey , and Jessica. Respondent contends that the evidence established that th e move wo uld enhan ce all of their lives with respec t to fi nances , hous ing, recreation, family

relationships, school programs, and stability

. Respondent

likens this case to In re Marr iage of Eaton , 26 9 Ill . Ap p. 3 d 50 7 (1 995 ). In Eaton , the trial court

denied a mother' s petition f

or remov al. The cour

t found tha

t moving t he parti es' children from Illinois to Florida would offer improved r ecreational and c ultural ac tivities for the children and an improved

financial and social situation for the mother. Nevertheless, in deny ing the petition, the court found that the move would drastically reduce the amount of contact the children had with their grandparents, uncles, and cousins in I llinois and woul d impair their father 'sNo. 2--06--0749

-14-

involvement

with the children, and that the father's involvement was not preser ved by the mot her's proposed visitation schedule , which pr

ovided the

same amo

unt of time

with the children but in long blocks, rather

than fre quent, ye ar-rou

nd contac ts. The co urt conc luded tha

t it was not convinced that the move would improve the quality of life for the children. On appeal, the court

reversed and noted that, for y ears, the mother had suffered the socia l, financi al, and scheduling pressures of a sing le parent. She w as forced to borrow money from her parents to meet her financial obligations . B y r emarry ing, she would receive child rear ing help as wellas love, economic security , and a comfortable home in a desirable locale. The court found that the trial court

failed to sufficiently consider the benefits that children derive from the financial and emotional well-beingof their custodial parent. Eaton , 269 Ill. App. 3d at 515. Moreover, the c ourt held that, in denying the

petition because the children's contact with their extended family and father inIllinois would be impaired, the trial court did not acknowledge that the custodial parent' s duty

to foster r elationsh ips with the noncustodial parent or extended family does not require the custodial parent to give up the right to pursue a ne w life. Eaton , 269 Ill. App. 3d at 513-14. Respondent

argue s that, like the mother in Eaton , she has established that both her financial and living situations would be greatly improved if the removal petition were granted a nd that the trial court failed to consider the benefits Jef frey a n d Jessica would derive from her enhanced circumst ances. Further, she contends that the trial court' s conside

ration of the sepa ration tha t would

occur between the children

and their family inIllinois effectively

penalizes her for actively fostering and encouraging

relation ships betw een the c hildren a nd their father, friends, and family . Thus, she concludes that the trial cour t's finding

that it wa s unclea

r that Jeff rey 's and Jes sica's

lives woul d likely be enhanc ed by the move wa s against the manifest weight of the evidenc e.No. 2--06--0749

-15-

We disagr

ee. I t is imp ortant to emphasize that the court in Eatonconsi dered t he mot her's improved financi al situati on as but one part of its overa ll balanci ng ana lys is. Similar

ly, the cour

ts in Main , 361 Ill. App. 3d at 990, an d In re Marr iage of Ludw

inski , 312 Ill. App. 3d 495, 500-01 (2000), also cite d by

responde nt, consid ered the custodial parents' improved financial and living situations intheir overall analy ses as factors weighing in fa vor of removal. However, in all three of thesecases, t

here we re oth er criti cal f

actors that weig

hed in fa vor of re moval. Fo

r example, in E aton , the mother's fiancé was unable to move to I llinois, and the cultural, educational , an d recreationalopportunities in Florida were clearly superior. In Main , the noncustodial father did not exercise his visitat

ion righ ts and, al though h e did

not want the children to move to Switzerland, he refuse d to let the

m live in his home. In Ludwinski , the noncustodial parent's motives in opposing the removal were questioned. "[R]arely will the facts and circumstances in two separat e removal cases be comparable. Reviewing courts a

nd trial c ourts alik

e should ta

ke care to review the particular facts of ea chremoval case, as one case is likely

distinguishable from the next." Johnson , 352 Ill. App. 3d at 616. In other words, the best-i nterest s determination in a removal case is extremely case specific and requires consideration

and balancing of

all factors, with the weight of each fa ctor vary ing depending on the

case. Here, the trial c ourt did note that the move would enhance respondent's financ ial situation, a fact that would

undoubte dly

benefit the children. However, the court determined that the c hildren would still lose more than they would ga in if the y mov ed and, th

us, that th e first Eckert

factor weighed against removal. Our tas k on review is to examine whether there is a basis in the record for the tr ial cour t's dec ision. We c onclude t hat ther e is.No. 2--06--0749

-16-

First, the record demonstrates that the move to Wisconsin would not provide any mea ningful enhancement

in circumstances for the children in terms of schools. The evide nce show s that the schools are re latively

equivale nt in terms

of curr iculu m an d class size . Althoug h there w as a possibility

of some curriculum changes in McHenr y, the chang es were tied to an upcomin g referendum

vo te and, thus, were speculative. Second, as to recr eational activities, such as swim ming, shooting, paintballing, and arts and crafts, the e vidence showed that

most act ivities availab le in Wisconsin are also available in Illinois. The fact that they may be slightly

more accessible--right

outside the door instead of a short drive away

--would not significantly

or materia lly improve the ch ildre n's lives. Fi nally , as to hous ing, whi le the Wisc onsin home and location appear attractive, the fact remains that the children will have their own rooms, whether in Wisconsin

or in Mc He nr y. It is respondent who will no longer be sleeping on the couc h, although we note that petit ioner 's testimony that the McHenry home is a three-bedroom house with one bedroom used as

anoffice was unrebutted. While it is true t hat th e Wis consi n hom e has a s eparat e room for J essic a's arts and crafts, which would be available to her throug hout the week, we note that there is also room set aside for Jessica's art s and cr afts at petitioner's home. Jeffrey can use the Wisconsin room for playing guitar and video games, but there was no testimony to sugg est that he was unable to do those things in his McHen

ry home. Although the

Wisconsin home may not be musty, the record shows that Jessica's asthma is controlled if she tak es her me dication. Thus, in regard to housing, the children would essentially not g ain anything new. The trial cou

rt found, and resp ondent contends, that her f inancia l situation will improv e with the move. This is uncontested, and we do not dispute this conclusion. We do note, though, that respondent

paints the

picture as thoug h it is a ce

rtainty that she will have to work full time if theNo. 2--06--0749

-17-

petition is denied

and, thus, that the children will suffer. However, respondent testified that she had notdiscussed with Mayer w hether he would continue to assist her financially if she did notmove to Wisconsin. Further, although May er testified

that it wou

ld be diff icult, he did not s ay

that he wo

uld discontinue his financial assistance. Inde ed, he testifi ed that he did not inte nd to brea

k off the ir relation ship and th at his goal wa s to en sure t he chi ldren 's happiness regardless of the outcome of the removal petition. In a

ny e vent, assuming the move would benefit respondent financially , allowing her to be more relaxed and ava ilable to the children on a full-time basis, the question becomes whether those benefits outweigh the things the c hildren would give up if they move. The trial court found, and the record supports, that the children have s trong ties to the ir family in McH enry

Count y. Altho ugh Je ssica

and Je ffre

y have f amily in Wi scons in, their father, brother, aunts, uncles, and c ousins all live in McHenry County . Both parties testified that Jeffrey and Jessica have close relationships and frequent contact with those f am il y members. The court explicitly found tha

t the child ren have thrived b ecause

of those ties, and the rec ord ref

lects that the children are re luctant to

leave th ese family

me mbers. Contrary to re spondent's assertion, the trial court 's c onsiderat ion of the move's effect on the children' s relationships with their father and relatives inIllinois was cer

tainly appropr iate. While

respondent's encourag ement of these relationships was not a waiver of her right to pursue a ne w life or pursue removal, certainly the move's effect

on the child ren's relation ships with f amily and frie nds is one f

acto r, amo ng many , to be evaluated and weighed in determining their best interests. See Johnson , 352 Ill. App. 3d at 613. We do not think the trial court er red in giving thi s factor

great weight in its anal

ysi s. Respondent

contends that she w

ill be able

to actively

encoura ge main tenance of these relationships after

moving a nd that she

will be ab le to bring

the child ren back and for

thto Ill inois.No. 2--06--0749

-18-

We fi nd re sp on de nt 's te st im on y a bit contradictory . On the one hand, respondent explains that the children will bene fit from the move be cause they will be stable an d not forced to travel back and forth betwee n Wis consin a nd Ill inois all th e time, a t rip that they

are some times unde

rstanda bly reluctant to make. A

t the same time, she a sserts tha

t she will bring the

m back an

d forth to see thei r Illinois family

, that the ir

relation ship with pe

titioner w ill not suffer because they will be returning to Illinois every

other weekend, and that she will continue to d rive the m back an d forth to Wisconsin every other weekend

even if t he petition is denie d. Thus, a lthough she touts sta

bility for the children

as a major factor in favor of remova l, it appears that she is the only pe rson who will truly be in a more stable environment after the move. Perhaps most importantly, the trial court appare ntly found

that the detri ment t o the c hild ren's relation ship with their fathe r, as we ll as those with their other relatives, outweighed any marginal benefit s the move may

provide i n other a reas. The c ourt specifically note d that petitioner has an extremely closerelationship with both children, that Jeffrey and petit ioner ar e "buds" and Jessic a is "daddy's girl." In othe

r cases, an extremely

close relationship be twe en the ch ildren a nd their noncustodial parent has been an important factor weig hing agains tremoval. See, e.g. , In re Marri age of Smith , 172 Ill. 2d 312, 324 (1996). In particular, and with re spect to the fourth and fifth Eckert factor s, the trial court here found that the move to Wisconsin would impede petitioner's visitation with his children and that

the proposed revised visitation schedule was inadequate. I t noted that the children would be forced to travel six hours every

other we ekend to v

isit their f ather a nd that the ir weekday visits with t

heir fa ther wou ld be elimi

nated. Although r

emoval wi ll alway

s have some impact on visitation, the question is whether a reasonable visitation sch edule can be created. Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2d at 532.No. 2--06--0749

-19-

Here, the court found that respondent's proposed schedule was re as onable on

ly " at first blush." This conclusionis supported by the rec ord. For example, making up for the loss of weekday visitation by off

ering p etit ioner time with the children on three-day weekends initially appe ars reasonable. But, upon closer examination, it appears respondent offers those weeke nds only if they happen to f all on pet itioner' s alrea

dy- schedule d weeke

nds. This would do ess entially nothing t o offset the 52 lost weekdays pe

r year. A lso at first blush, offering petitioner alternating spring breaks appears reasonable, but, upon closer examination, it is clear that heis already entitled to alternating spring breaks pursuant

to the disso lution judg

ment. The court noted, and the record supports, that petitioner curren tly stops by on occasion to say hello to the childre

n and that Jeffrey has ridde n his bike to petitione

r's hou se. The r

ecord r eflects that petit ioner exe rcises mo st of his visitation rights "religiously ," has attended the children's choral concerts and soc cer games, and spendsquality time with the children when they

are together. This ty

pe of accessibility to the c hildren would be drastically re duced, if not eliminated, if the petition were granted. The trial court noted that, when a parent reg ularly exercises

his visitation, " 'a cou

rt should be loath to interfere with it by pe rmitting removal of the children for f rivol ous or unpersuasive or inadequa te reasons.' " Eckert , 119 Ill. 2d a t 327 , quot ing D'Onof rio v. D' Onofrio , 144 N.J. Super. 200, 205-07, 365 A .2d 27, 30 (1976). Respondent takes issue with the trial court's findings that Mayer's refusal to move to Illinois was an unpersua sive and inadequate reason for removal and the court 's appare

nt finding

that resp ondent wa s resp onsibl e for the family 's fina ncial situ ation in McHenr y. While respondent is correct that neither the Act nor Eckert require s that she

or Ma ye r exhaust employment or housing oppor tunities in Illinois for removal to be granted ( see Ludwinski , 312 Ill. App. 3d at 500-01), the court should consider all circumstances of the case in consideringNo. 2--06--0749

-20-

the best interests of the children. See Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2d at 522-23, Eckert , 119 Ill. 2d at 326. Indeed, the ability of the remova l-pe titioner orhis or her spouse or partner to relocate is often consi de red

in removal cases, even if it is not dispositive of the ultimate issue. In Eaton , the court recalled that the mother's fiancé had an established law practice in Florida and that it was unf

easible for him to move to Illinois. Eaton , 269 Ill. App. 3d at 509. In Johnson , the court noted that the moth er's husband was required to takea transfer to Arizona or accept a seve rance package a

nd that he had sent resumes to two other companies. Johnson , 352 I ll. App. 3d at 607. In In re Marriage of Repond , 349 Ill. App. 3d 910, 912, 917 (2004), we noted the fact that the mother, a physicist, had lost her job and could not find a new onein the Unit ed States but was a ble to obtain em

ploy ment in Switzerland. Inaddition, the mother's husband, a former professor a t the University of

Illinois, had unsuccessfully tried to e

xtend his employment

with the university and, thus, resided and taug ht in Switzerland. Repond , 349 Ill. App. 3d at 912. Here, Mayer

understa ndably wishes to r

emain on h

is proper ty in Wisconsin, but the co

urt did noterr in considering this fact or considering that there was nothing to pre vent Mayer

from coming to Illinois. Indee d, the trial court should hear any and all relevant evidence. Eckert , 119 Ill. 2d at 326. As to the c ourt's c omments re gardin g respondent' s choice s and their ef fect on her current financial and housin

g condi tions, we d

o not rea d the cour

t as havin

g imp roper ly penalized respondent

for not seeking increased ea rning opportunities or improved housing. Rather, the court simply recognized that her current undesira ble co ndi tions were linked to her decision to provide other benefits to her children. Fi na ll y, we note tha t the children testified in camera that they did not wish

to move to Wisconsin. While the c hild ren's preference in a removal c ase is not determinative (see, e.g. ,No. 2--06--0749

-21-

Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2d at 534), the trial court here gave due consideration

to their w

ishes in its best interests analysis. Insum, we c annot con

clude tha t the tria l court' s denial o f the pet

ition for r emoval wa s again st the manifest weight of the evidence. For the fore going

reasons , the judgment of

the circuit court of McHenry County is affirmed. Affirmed. BYRNE, J., concurs. JUS TICE BOW MAN, d issen ting: Irespectfully

dissent. In my

opinion, the trial court's denial of respondent's request to remove the childre

n from Illinois to Wisconsin was against the manifest weight of the e vidence. Thus, the judgment should be reversed. Section609(a) of the Illinois Marriag e and Dissol ution of Marriage Act (A ct) (750 IL CS 5/609(a) (West 2004)) allows a t rial court to approve a custodial parent's r emoval of the minor children from Illinois when it is in t he children's best interests. I n denying respondent's removal request , the trial

c ourt s tated that it "applied and balanced" the va rious factors set forth by our supreme court in In re Marriage of Eckert , 119 Ill. 2d 316 (1988). The Eckert factors include: (1) the likelihood that the proposed move will enhance the genera l quality of life for both

the custodial parent and the children; (2) whether the proposed move is a ruse designed to frustrate or de feat the

noncu stod ial pa rent's visitation; (3) the noncustodial parent's motives in resisting removal; (4) the

noncu stodial parent's visitation rights; and (5) whether a reasonable visitation schedule can b e worked out. Eckert , 119 Ill. 2d at 326-27. Accord ing to the trial cou rt, it was unclear that a move to Wisconsin would likely enhance the quality of life for r

espondent

and the children. In addition,No. 2--06--0749

-22-

the court found that the fourth and fifth Eckert factor s pertain

ing to vis itation did

not favor removal

. A trial court's determination of what is in the ch

ildren' s best

interests will not be reversed on appeal unless tha

t determi nation is a

gainst t he manif est weight of the evidence

and it appears that

a manifest injustice has occurred. Inre Marriage of Parr , 345 Ill. A pp. 3d 371, 376 (2003 ). While the majority and I

agree that the ma

nifest-weight st

andard a pplies, th e majorit

y concludes that the trial c ourt's d

ecision c annot be r

everse d under th

is standa rd. I disagr ee. A de cision is a

gainst t h e mani fest weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or wher e th e findi ngs are unreasonable, arbitrary , and not based upon any of the e vidence. In re Marriage of Main , 361 Ill. App. 3d 983, 989 (2005). Based o n my revie w of th e recor d, th e tria l cour t's decision is agains t the manif

est weig ht of the e vidence because the opposi

te conclusi on is clea

rly evident and

a manifest injustice will result frompr ev en ti ng th e c hi ld re n' s r em ov al . T hu s, un li ke th e m aj or it y, Ibelieve that application

of the manifest-weight standard requires re versal in this case. See In re Marri age of Ludwinski , 312 I ll. App. 3d 495, 498 ( 2000) (" Alt

hough th e tria l court has broad discretionin these c ases, tha t discret ion is not un

limited an

d, when the decisi on is against the manifest weight of the ev idence, it will be r

everse d"). Otherwis e , the manifest-weight standard becomes tantamount to no review at all. In In re Marriage of Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2d 498, 523 (2003), our supreme cour t cautioned that the purpose of the factors set forth in Eckert is not to establish a test in which the parent seeking removal must

meet every

prong; rather, the Eckert

factors are to be considered and ba lanced by the trial court and no one factor is controlling. Further, while the Eckert factors should be considered, they are not exclusive and a trial court may validly consider other r

elevant factors, as dictated by the specific circumstances in the case. Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2d at 522-23. For the f ollowing reasons ,No. 2--06--0749

-23-

I disagree with the trial court's assessment of the Eckert fac to rs i n t hi s ca se. Inaddition, I believe that there are other relevant fa ctors that favor the children's move to Wisconsin. Withrespect to the first Eckert factor, the trial

court fo und that, while the

Wisconsin D ells is a be au ti fu l p la ce to vi si t, th e c hi ld re n h av e " st ro ng ti es wi th fa mi ly, fr ie nd s a nd co mm un it y i n McHenr y, Illinoi s." Th e court furth er foun d the f ollo wing: "The negative aspects of their current living situation in McHenry exist, in lar

ge par t, because of the choices that

[responde

nt] has made. [Respondent] chooses to work only 15 hours a week. While this choice has allowed [respondent] to spend more time with her children before and aft er school , it requires her family to live in a house that she does not like. This choice has also and [ sic ] prevented [respondent] from making ends meet without the financia l assistan ce of her fiancé." Contr ary to th e majority' s conclusion, I believe that the trial cour t improperly penalized respondent for not

seeking increased income opportunities or improved housing . See Ludwinski , 312 Ill. App. 3d at 500 (the trial court may have ina

ppropriately pe

nalized the custodial parent for notseeking increased incom e opportunities in Illinois). Whether the parent reque sting removal seeks employment

in Illinois is not one of the Eckert factor s that cou

rts must consider. Ludwinski , 312 Ill. App. 3d at 500-01. Moreover, the custodial parent seeking removal

is not required to make every effort to remain

in Ill inois or to e

xhaust all employ

ment oppor

tunities in Illinois. Ludwinski , 312 Ill. App. 3d at 500. Responde nt explaine d that she

works ap proximatel

y 15 hours a

week be cause she feels that it is important to be home with Jessica and Je ffrey when the

y a re not in s chool. Responden t's sc hedule permits her to be at home before and af ter school, when the children stay home sick, and in the summer. Respondent testified that based on her salary , she could not affordNo. 2--06--0749

-24-

a better place to live. Respondent is able to work fewer hours and spend time with her children due to Mayer' s financial assistance. However, May er testifie d that if

responde nt remain s in Il linois, it will be dif

ficul t to co ntin ue to s uppor t her o n an on go ing bas is. Thus, u nless May

er moves to Illinois, responde

nt willbe fo rc ed to fi nd a f ul l- ti me jo b t o s up po rt he r f am il y. Obviously, working full time means less time with her children. Also, respondent testified that she is not qualified for most jobs because she does not have special training beyond a hig

h school education. Ac co rd in gl y, the stress of finding full-time work is compounded by her l evel of schooling, which limits her employment options. Inaddition to financial pressures, a single parent must facea myriad of scheduli ng pre ssures. Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2d at 527. As the ch il dren's prima ry caretake r, it i s resp onden t's responsi bility not only to pay

expenses but to handle conflicts between her work schedule a nd the child ren's care. See Collingbourne , 204 I ll. 2d at 52 6-27 (the day-to-day

issues a single parent

must face include t

he childr en's ph ysi cal and e

motional w ell-bein

g, their perfor mance a t school, their desire to engage in extracur ricular activities, and their care when the pa rent cannot

be with them). Respondent

explained

that her previous full-time job requi red her to work fr

om 7:30 a.m . to 5 p.m. and that she c ould not pic

k up the ch

ildren after sch

ool. Bec ause ful l-time emp loy ment allow s only so much flexibility in taking time off, respondent expressed c oncern that she would not

be able t o be home when the children aresick and that the children will be unsupervised during the summer.

Co nv er se ly, if respondent moved to Wisconsin, she would not need to work because May er would provide for her

and her children. See Collingbourne , 204 I ll. 2d at 52 9 (an impr ovement i n the financi al situati on of the c ustodial p arent wi ll gene

rally benefit a child by enhanc ing the child 'sNo. 2--06--0749

-25-

standard of

living) . Not only

would she be re lieved of

the stres s of findin

g a job a nd workin

g full time, but she would have more quality time with

Jeffrey and Jessica. Respondent would not nee d to worry a

bout rushing off to work, hiring baby sitters, or leaving the children home alone. In he r words, responde

nt is try ing to es tablish

a s uitable, comfortable family life where she is not "on edge." Sh e t es ti fi ed th at Ma yer ma ke s h er ha pp y, that she is more relaxed in Wisconsin, and that her relation ship with Jeffrey and Jessica has thereby be en enhanced. See Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2d at 526 (the bes t interes ts of the c hildren c annot ea sily

be sever ed from the intere sts o f the custod ial parent with whom the children reside and upon whose mental and phy sical well-being the children primarily depend)

. Furthermore, the creation of a new family unit and the social environment of a t raditional family setting may be consider

ed an important benefit to children. Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2d at 529. Indeed, our society

places great weig

hton the rig

ht to marry a

nd remarry

. Eaton , 269 Ill. App. 3d at 516. It was respondent' s belief that the children would benefit from a "complete family," meaning

a man and a

woman in the home. T his way, the chil dren would hav e both fe male and male perspectives on every

day issues. "[S]ince a court has no power to require the noncustodial parent to remain in

Illinois, or to r

equire members o f the exten ded fami ly to

remain in

Illinois, some deferenceis due to the custodial parent who has already determined the best interests of her children and hersel f are se rved b y remarria ge and removal." ( Emphasisin original). In re Marriage of Eaton , 269 Ill. App. 3d at 515-16. Inaddition, the childre n's living conditions would be enhanced by moving to Wisconsin. First, there is stability in living in May er's home without the worry of re nt or a nos y la

ndlord. According

to respondent, she moved several times before re nting her current home, and her currentNo. 2--06--0749

-26-

home is problema

tic due to its location near a busy highway and the landlord situation. If removal

were permitte d, she wou

ld not have to find more suitable housing in Illinois. Second, Jessica has asthma and respondent testified that the ren tal pro per ty is mu st y and th at t he a ir q ual it y is p oor . In th e Wisconsin home, Mayer installed a hig h-efficiency

air filter in the furnace, which he testifi e d remedie d some of Je ssica' s problem s. Third, M ayer was c onstruct ing a ro om specif

ically devoted to the children that would contain shelves, tables, and b enches. A ccording to May er, the entertainment

secti on/ar t gall ery would provi de a pl ace for Jess ica's cr afts a nd Je ffrey's interests. For thesereasons , I dis a gre e with the majority' s conclusion that, with respect to housing, the children would essentially not

gain an yth ing new . I a

lso note that the Wisconsin property provides g reater

access to the activ

ities the c hildren e njoy , in that it contains a pond, a shooting gallery, and 88 acres of wildlife and nature. Withrespec t to t he tri al cou rt's finding that the children havestrong ties with their extended family inIllinois, this factor does not outweigh the value of the re lationships they have deve loped with respondent's extended family in Wisconsin. Respondent explained that in the past, she was not able to visit her p arents or her br other' s family

in Wisconsin

very often be cause she worke d full-time during the week and cleaned houses on the weeken ds. Howe ver, in tr aveling to Wisconsin the past fewyea rs , b ot h J ef

fr ey a nd Je ss ic a h av e b ec om e c lo se to th ei r g ra nd pa re nt s a nd th ei r u nc le 's fa mi ly. Respondent

testified that

Jeffrey wa s now "very

close" to her brother and that they often hunt and go paintballing together. Also, both respondent and petitioner testified that Jeffrey and Jessica do not see their grandparents as often a s they would like. Moreover, there is n

o reason why the child ren can not mainta

in relati o nships with their extended family in McHenry

County if they

move to Wisconsin. Petitioner testified that the childrenNo. 2--06--0749

-27-

see hi s e xt en de d f

am il y ap pr ox im at el y t wice a m onth , whic h coul d cont inue d uring t he chi ldren 's alt e rnate weekend visits in McHenry County. Respondent also recog nized the importance of maintaining relationships with her family member s in the McHenry

area. She testified that she was willing to bring he r nieces and n ephews to Wisconsin or bring her children to I llinois to continue those relationships. According to respondent, one of her sisters travels to Wisconsin "quite often"

so that her son can hunt, which woul d provide o pportunit ies for Jes sica and

Jeffrey to spend ti

me with them. Given her history

of maintaining these relationships, there is nothing to sugg est that they would be lost if respondent and her children were a llowed to move three hours away

. The next two Eckert

factor s releva

nt here i nvolve the

visitation rights of the non custodial parent and whether a realistic and reasona ble visitation schedule can be reached if the move i s allow ed. W ith re spect to th ese fac tors, the tr ial co urt fo und t he fol lowi ng:

"In the present case, the court fin ds Mr. May

er's un willingness to move

to Ill inois 'if Ican avoid it'

to be both a

n unpersu asive an d inadequ ate rea son for r

emoval. T

hus, while [responde nt's] proposed

visitation schedule appears reasonable at f

irst blush, the court wil l notmak e Je ffr ey and Je ssica ch an ge sc ho ol s, le av e t he ir fr ie nd s a nd mu ch of th ei r f am il y, sit in a car for six hours every other we ekend in order to s ee their father , and elim

inate the ir time with their father during theweek, simply beca use Mr. Maye

r chooses not to move if he can avoid it." Idisagree with the trial court's assessment of the evidence re garding visitation. Respondent is the same mother who co operated i n visitation and fost ered the childre n's rel ationship s with petitioner and their extended f

amily inMcHenry

County. While the trial court noted that petitioner would lose one evening's visitation during the we ek, the visitation schedule uponremoval need notNo. 2--06--0749

-28-

be equivalent

to that prior to removal. Ludwinski , 312 Ill. App. 3d at 502. Beca use any removal will have some effec t on visitat ion, the r eal ques tion is whe

ther a vi sitation sc

hedule that is both

reasona ble and realistic can be created. Eaton , 269 Ill. App. 3d at 515. A reasonab le visitation schedule is one that will preserve and foster the child ren's r elationsh ip with the

noncustod

ial pare nt. Eckert , 119 Ill. 2d at 327. I t need not be perfect. Parr , 345 Ill. App. 3d at 379. I nitially, I note that the judgment

of dissolu

tion did not

provide f or week day visitation with petitioner. However, when respondent

was employed f

ull time, she had

to work one weekday

evening, and the children stay ed with petitioner. Although respondent no longer works full time, she ha s continue d that visit ation schedule, which isevidence of her commitment to the children's relationship with their father. See Eaton , 269 Il l. App. 3d a t 515 ("I nstead of assuming

visitation

could not b e reasonably

accomm odated

if permis sion for r

emoval we

re gra nted, the presumpt ion ough t to be in [the

mother' s] favor, i.e. , [she] will continue to cooperate in a reasonable and r ealistic schedule designed to preserve [the father's] relationship with his children"). Moreover, re sp on de nt 's re qu es t t o m ov e t o W is co ns in in vo lv es on ly a three-hour drive from McHenry County. As a result, it is not the ty pe of long-distancemove that requires complicated travel plans or t

hat will su

bstantial ly im

pair pet itioner' s involvement with the children. See Eckert , 119 Ill. 2d at

328 (when removal to a distantjurisdiction will substantially impair the noncustodial parent 's involvement with the child, the trial cou rt should a ssess the

potentia l harm tothe child that may result f rom the m ove). Because petitioner will be able to continue his eve ry-other-weekend visitation schedule with the children as before, the distance betwee n them will not greatly limit the frequency of their contact or adversely affect the quality of their re lationship. See Collingbourne , 204 Ill. 2d at 533 (where former bimonthly visitation would be replac ed with a schedule that allowsNo. 2--06--0749

-29-

less frequent, but more extended, contact between the fa ther and the son, the tr

ial cour t must eval

uate both quantitative and qualitative differences in visitation). While there w ould be an effect on visitation, the three-hour distance would not prevent petitione r from ma intaining a close relation ship with Jessica and Jeffrey. The majority points out that petitioner currently stops by on o ccasio n to say hello to the children, that he has attended the children's choral concerts and soc cer games, and that Jeffrey has ridden his bike to petitioner's house. According to the majority , this type of acc essibility to the children would be drastically r

educed, if noteliminated, if the petition were granted. Howeve r, as stated, re mo va l w il l a lw ays have some impact on visitation. Otherwise, children could never be removed if the cu stodial pa

rent live s close to

the noncu stodial pa

rent and the child ren shar e a close relation ship to the noncustodial parent. Also, I believe that th e m aj or it y ov er st at es pe ti ti on er 's da yto-day contact with the children. It appearsthat Jeffrey has r idden his bike to petitioner's home on five occasions and that he is no long er part icipating in socce r. According to

responde nt, petit ioner 's unscheduled

visits were infrequent and did not last more than five minutes. See In re Marriage of Stahl , 348 Ill. A

pp. 3d 602, 619 (2004) (Bowman, J., dissenting) (the noncustodial parent' s fears regarding visitation are not w ell founded given the relatively short distance to Wisconsin the custodial parent wants to mov e). I n any event, the crucial question is whether a reasonable visitation schedule can be created. Inmy o pin ion, such a schedule can be achieve d in this case without harming the children. To this end, respondent proposed a schedule in which she w ould mee t petitioner half way for the drop-offs and pick-ups, and give him extra time on Sunday s. To make up for the one weekday that petitioner would lose, respondent suggested that he c ould talk to Jessica and Jeffrey on the phoneNo. 2--06--0749

-30-

during the week, and then i f a thre e-day weeken d fell on his scheduled weekend, he could have the extra day with them. She also proposed givingpetitioner a full week of visitation at spring break, every othe

r year, and possibly another we ek of visitation in the summer. Giventheir ami cable hi story , I ha ve no doub t that the p arties c ould cre ate a sch edule that preserves petitione

r's re lationship

with the children. Both re spondent a nd petitioner test

ified that visitation has proceeded smoothly in the past and that they have worked together in being flexible and fashioning a workable schedule. There is no reason why the parties' mutual love for the children would not ensure such cooperation in the future. Admittedly, where a noncustodial parent has been diligent in exercising vi sitat ion rights, the court should be reluctant to permit removal of children f orfrivolou s o r inadequate reasons. Ludwinski , 312 Ill. App. 3d at 503. However, as discussed, respo ndent 's reasons are neither frivolous nor inadequate . Moving to Wisconsin will provide benefit s of financial sec

urity , increa sed time with her children, improved living c onditions, stable housing, and a traditional family setting. It is well established that a noncustodial parent does not possess a veto po wer to stop a

cus todial parent from exercising a reasonable desire to remarry

and move out of the state
. Ludwinski , 312 I ll. App. 3d at 504. B y de

nyi ng resp ondent' s removal petition, t he trial c ourt is essentia lly requirin g that r esponde nt choose betwee n a new hu sband in Wis consin and work ing full

time in Illinois to remain with her children. Cf. Eaton , 269 Ill. App. 3d at 516 ("While the trial court 's deci sion d id not proh ibit petitioner fro m remarr yin g, it did make that

choice m

uch less attractive, for cin g he r to cho ose bet wee n a n ew h usb and in Flo rid a an d he r ch il dre n i n Ill in oi s") . In its written o

pinion, the

trial cou rt stated that " there is no rea son why [respondent] and Mr. May er cannot make a life together in I llinois, except that Mr. Mayer chooses not to." Ironica

lly, if May

erNo. 2--06--0749

-31-

moved to Illinois, the children could end up living more than thre e hours away , because May er testified that he would want to live in the southern part of the state. See Main , 361 Ill. App. 3d at 990 (section

609 of the

Act does not apply

to intrast ate tran sfers a

nd a cust odial paren t need not obtain permission from a c ourt bef ore movin g to another

location within I llinois). T

his would har

dly be a better outcome than granting respondent's request to remove the children to Wisconsin. Inlight of the Eckert

factor s and the o ther re levant f actors in this case , respond

ent's r equest for removal should have been g ran ted. Affirming the trial court's dec ision in this case forces respondent

to choose between marry ing a man who lives three hours away and remaining with her children in Ill inois, des

pite evid ence tha t the move

to Wisconsin

would enhance the gener al quality of life for both respondent and her children. With respect to visitation , the bottom line is a

reasona ble change in the visitation schedule, given the short distance of the move. Instead of interpretingthe best interests of the childr en in a w ay t hat im pedes respo ndent from e xerci sing a

r easonab le desire to

remarr y a nd move ou

t of the sta

te, I believe that the c

hildren' s best inte

rests would be better served by

granting respondent's pe

tition. Becaus e the t rial c ourt's finding is agai nst the manif est weight of the evidence, I would reverse the trial court's denial of the removal petition and remand for the limited purpose of setting a visitation schedule.