## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## RE P O R T S Appellate Court

In re Marriage of Dorfman , 2011 IL App (3d) 110099

Appellate Court Caption In re MARRI AG E OF BET H DORFMAN
, Petitioner-Appellee
, and BA RRY DORFMAN, Responde nt-Appellant.

District & N o. Third District Docke t No. 3-11-0099

Filed August 24, 2011

Held (Note : Thi s syl lab us

con s t it ute s no par t of the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed b y the Repo rt er of D e c i s i o n s f

o r t h e

c o n v e n i e n c e o

f t h e

rea der

. ) The trial court did not err in g ranting petitioner’s request t o remove the parties’ children to G eorg ia, and in doing so, the trial court did not shift the burden of proof to res pondent, the court’s ref ere nce to elec tronic communication did not violate section 609(c) of the I llinois Marr iag e and Dissolution of Marriag e Act and r espondent a g ree d when the tr ial court order ed that if the parties could not agree on a visitation schedule
, either party could move to have the cour t conduct a he aring

on visitation.

Dec ision Under
Review Appea l from the C ircuit Court of W ill C ounty , No. 08-D- 246; the Hon. Dinah J. Archambea

ult, J udg e, pre siding.

J udg ment Affir med.Counsel on

Appea l Gre g ory J umbeck (ar gued) and Mikal J

. Stole, both of Reich, J umbeck & Associates, L L P, of J oliet, for appe llant.

J ames R. Br

umund and Sarah M. Vahe y (ar gued), both of Br umund, J acobs, H ammel, Davidson & Andre ano, L L C, of J oliet, for appe llee.

Panel J USTI CE O’B RI EN deliver ed the judgment of the c ourt, with opinion. Presiding J ustice Carter and J ustice Holdridg e concur red in the judgme nt and opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 Be th Dorfma

n, the petitioner, filed a petition to remove the parties’ min o r ch i l d re n to Geor g ia. Ba

rry Dorfma n, the re spondent, filed a motion askingthe court to or der Be th a nd the minors to move back to I llinois

. After a hear ing, the court g rante d Be th’s petition. Ba rry appea ls, contending that the trial court err ed in g ranting Be th’s petition for remova l beca use it: (1) i m p ro p er ly considere d the evidenc e in light of the applicable law and eff ectively shifted the burden of proof to him; and (2) failed to provide Ba rry with any visitation rig hts and improper ly

relied on the availability

of ele ctronic c ommunications. W e af firm.

¶ 2 FACTS ¶ 3 Be th and Ba

rry wer e marrie d on August 9, 1998. Be th g ave birth t o a s o n , Dy lan, on J anuar y 12, 2001, and a daug hter, Alay na (L anie) on J uly 14, 2002. There afte r, on Fe bruar y 8, 2008, Be th filed a petition for dissolut ion of marr iag e, and the court e ntere d a judg ment dissolving the parties’ marria g e on May 20, 2009. Pursuant to the terms of the judgme nt of dissoluti on, the court awa

rded Be th sole custody of the minors. The court rese rved the matter of Ba rry ’s visitation and noted that he had y et to complete a pare nting class. After the divorce
proce eding s, the court grante d Ba rry vary ing te rms of super

vised visitation. ¶ 4 Be th moved with the minors to Geor g ia in J une 2010, and she fil ed h er p et i t ion to

remove the m inors on August 9, 2010. Ba rry filed a motion asking the court to order Be th and the minors to move back to I llinois

. The court co n du ct ed hearings on the remova l petition in Dec ember 2010 and J anuar y 2011. The rec ord indicates that Ba rry acte d pro se

. ¶ 5 Ba rry and Be th testified at the hear ings. Ba rry explained his mental health history and stated that he had been voluntarily institutionaliz ed in the psy chiatric war ds of var i ous hospitals on seven occa sions betwee n Fe bruar y and Nov ember 2008. The recor d indicates that on J uly 3, 2008, prior to one of Ba rry ’s admissions to the ps ychiatric war d, he left his sister, Ba rbar a Dorfma

n, a voice m ai l stating that he had purcha sed a gun, and police

-2-subsequently found him driving in L ockport, I llinois
, the town in which Be th and the minors

lived at the time. During Ba rry ’s testimony
, he denied having a gun, but acknow ledg ed that police found him drivingaround L ockport. ¶ 6 Ba

rry also testified that he suffe red from depre ssion, but he believed that his de pression

was situational. He acknow ledg ed that he informed Rita Murr, the guardia n ad litem (GAL ) for the minors, that he had been diag nosed with ha ving border line persona lity disorder. He also stated that he had been prescr ibed L exapro to help m anag e his depre ssion, but denied taking it at the time of the hear ing. He denied ever taking any other psy chiatric medications. Be th, howeve r, introduced an e-ma il from Ba rry indicating that he had been presc ribed five
psy chiatric medications and that he fille d three of the presc riptions. Be th also introduced additional e-ma ils from Ba rry that indicated that Ba

rry neede d his psy chiatric medication to be able to live a normal life. ¶ 7 Acc ording to Be th, sometime around J uly 2007, Ba rry beca me convince d that she was having an extramarital aff air, and so he beg an to “interr og at[e]” her on a monthly basis about her daily wher eabouts. During Ba rry ’s questioning of Be th, he would either act as if he wer e in a tranc e or rag e, depending on whether he could g et the information he soug ht from Be th. Be th explained that these “interr og ation[s] ” occurred wee kly starting in November 2007. Ac co rd i n g t o Be th, half of the “interr og ation[s] ” occur red in the prese nce of the minors
, during which time Ba

rry had call ed Be th “a liar and a whore .” Be th took a polyg raph examination to prove to Ba rry that she did not have an aff air, but t h e re s u l t s wer e inconclusive due to problems with her bre athing

. ¶ 8 Ba

rry acknow ledg ed that the court had g rante d three emerg ency order s of protec tion in favor of Be th and ag ainst him. The order s wer e g rante d on: (1) J anuar y 5, 2008, in case No. 08-OP-93; (2) May 19, 2008, in c ase No. 08-OP-898; and (3) J uly 7, 2008, in c ase No. 08- OP-1197. The r ecor d indicates that B eth voluntarily dismiss ed the f

irst order of

protec tion in an attempt to save the marria g e. The rec ord also shows that the order of protec tion enter ed in case No. 08-OP-898 was subsequently dismiss ed, and the court enter ed a restra ining order in its place

. The restra ining order g rante d Ba rry visitation with the minors, but forba de him from “phy sically or verba lly abusing
, hara ssing, threatening
, or attempting to discuss issues with Be th Dorfma

n not related t o the parties minor children or logistica l nece ssit i es

. ” The

rec ord further indi cate s that the court extended the o rd er o f protec tion enter ed in case No. 08-OP-1197 until J uly

26, 2012. ¶ 9 Ba

rry admitted that prior to dismiss al of the J anuar y 5, 2008, order of protec tion, he had violated it by approa ching Be th while she was in the Flossmoor library

. Be th explained that she visited the library fre quently
, while Ba rry did not. On t h e d ay o f the violation, Ba rry approa ched her and asked to talk. Be th declined and called the police. Be th noticed that Ba rry had a black eye, but someone had alre ady informed Be th that it was self-inflicte d. Ba rry also acknow l ed ged t hat he violated the restra ining order by coming to Be th’s work, but he contende d that he “didn’ t think [ he] was violating a ny thing” at that time. ¶ 10 Be th a lso e x plained the basis of the order of protec tion enter ed in case No. 08-OP-898. Ba rry had become ang ry

and had a ccuse d Be th of having“a hundr ed f*** friends that [he] kn[e] w nothing about,” and ripped his underw ear off of his body

. Be th then g ather ed the

-3-minors and attempted to leave their residenc e, at which point Ba rry threw Be th’s car key s

acr oss the y ard and shoved Be th to the ground. A neig hbor intervene d and helped Be th and the children leave

. The following day
, Ba rry attempted to remove Dy lan from his school, but he was unsucce ssful beca use the order of protec tion was alre ady in place

. Ba rry later called J udy Dorfma

n, his mother, and informed her t hat he was attempting suicide by sitti ng in a running car in a closed g ara g e. The police subsequ en t l y rescued Ba rry , and he voluntarily
enter ed the hospital for

psy chiatric help. ¶ 11 Ba

rry also s t at ed t h at the court had convicted him of two misdemeanor offe nses of violating an order of protec tion, and he s erve d jail terms on eac h conviction of 18 and 28 day s, respe ctively

. The court also convicted Ba rry of a third offe nse of violating an order of protec tion. Th i s co n v i ct i on was a felony
, and Ba rry was sentenc ed to a one-year term of imprisonment. Ba

rry ’s term of imprisonment for this offe nse beg an on Dec ember 22, 2009, and ended on J une 22, 2010. At that time, he was rele ased to J udy ’s home subject to an ankle

m o nitoring device that prohibited him from leaving this residenc e without ad v an ce permission. The ankle monitoring de vice wa s to be remove d on J une 22, 2011. ¶ 12 Pursuant to the May 30, 2008, restra ining order
, Ba rry was g rante d visitation of var ious times for five or si x day s per week. In order s enter ed on Au gu s t 2 1
, 2008, and August 26, 2009, the cour

t gr anted B arr

y supervised visitation of the minors for one day per w eek. ¶ 13 Ba

rry exercised visitation with the minors on three oc casions fr om May 31 to J une 13, 2 0 08; three times from September 1 to October 1, 2008; at no time betwee n October 1 5
, 2008, and J anuar

y 5, 2009; and four times betwee n J anuar y 10 and Fe bruar

y 13, 2009. The

rec ord contains an e-ma il from Ba rry to Be th dated April 1, 2009, wher e Ba rry reque sted that Be th stop sending him “re port car ds or any thing else.” In that e-ma il, Ba rry further stated that he was “done,” and that he “ha[d] no family

. . . they [were Be th’s ] k i d s

. ” Al t h o ug h the

rec ord does not disc lose further specific information on Ba rry ’s visitation with the minors, it indicates that Ba

rry filed a motion on August 17, 2010, statin g t h at h e was permitted to have co n t act with the minors, but that he also wanted visitation with them. Ba rry also testified that he had phoned the minors ever y day since August 2010, and that a rec ent visit with them had g one ver

y well. ¶ 14 The rec ord also contain s n u m erous other e-ma ils and voice mails from Ba rry to Be th. Many of these messag es wer e addre ssed to the minors, but Ba rry stated that he sent them to Be th’s e-ma il and voice mail acc ounts with the ex pectation that she would interce pt them. In these messag es, Ba

rry g ener ally acc used Be th of having an extramarital aff air, and specific ally st at ed t h at “a whole bunch of dominos will come falling down on [Beth] and
expose her for the liar, cheater, horrible person, brea ker of the ten commandments she [was]

. And y es, unfortunate ly
, that [m ade] her a W HO R E

. ” Ba rry also wrote an e-ma il that had “Dylan & L ane” in the subject, and continued in the body by stating that the minors “[we]re better off being raised by ANYON E wh o [ d i d not] run off at night F*** other guy s while their home with their fathe r. You f*** WHORE!!! You’re a f*** whore

. How’s your other daug hter, y ou whore
, huh? Everyone will know [t he truth] soon, cuz I ’ve g ot nothing to lose. So, the truth is coming out... YOU F*** SLUT, CHEAT, WHORE!!!!! ” Ba rry also sent an

e-ma il with “Kids” in the subject line, and in the body called B eth “GA RBAGE .”

-4-¶ 15 Acc ording to Ba rry , he was drinking heavily when h e s en t Be th these e-ma ils. Bar ry acknow ledg ed t h at two men in Wis consin had obtained order s of protec tion ag ainst him, beca use Ba rry left offe nsive and threatening voice mail messag es for them due to his belief that they wer e involved in B eth’s alleg ed af fair. ¶ 16 Reg arding Ba rry ’s ref ere nce to Be th’s “other daught er,” the rec ord indicates that Be th had a daug hter at ag e 18 and g ave her up for adoption. Whil e Be th’s pare nts and Ba rry knew th is in f ormation, Be th intentionally kept this information from her ext e n d e d f a mi ly
, in c lu d in g her g randpa

rents, aunts, and uncles. Ba rry admitted, howeve r, that he had sent a letter to five of Beth’s ex tended- family members stating t hat s he had had a child at age 1 8 and that she had had an extramarital aff air. Be th stated that Ba

rry sent this information to over 10 of her relatives and that it had ca used her problems with her f

amily

. ¶ 17 Be th a lso r ead some of the contents of two c ompact discs (CD) of phone me ssag es left for her or th e chil dren by Ba rry

. One disc was compiled on J une 10, 2009, by the M okena police depar

tment, and it consisted of 28 mes s age s

. The second disc was compiled by the depar tment on November 3, 2009, and it consisted of 36 messag es. Ba rry stipulated that he made the phone calls. ¶ 18 Ba

rry specific ally

acknow ledg ed that around Marc h 2009, he left a voice mail f or Be th with “thre atening rema

rks such as: ‘You will die’ and ‘Someone wi l l k i l l you[.] ’ ” Other voice messag es included a threat that “[t] otally destroying [Beth was] the only thing [Barr y ] and [hi s] lawyer [wanted to] do.” Ba rry also left a messag e for the minors that stated in part “join me i n my

hopes that Mommy

g ets hit by

a truc k head on while s he’s driving. Ex cept it’ s more painful beca

use that’s what she rea lly deser ves. So join in with me, will you? I believe that will happen.” ¶ 19 Ba

rry explained that he had been treated by Dr. Mark S h u kh m an s i n ce September 9, 2009, for attention defic it hy pera ctivity disorder (ADH D), and Be th i n t ro du ced notes Shukhman took in his treatment of B arr y

. Shukhman’s notes indicated that during Ba rry ’s i n i t i al appointment with Shukhman, Ba rry did not inform Shukhman of his history of
psy chiatric hospitaliz ations, suicide threat, previous medications, or ong oing leg al problems with Be th and the minors. Ba rry informed Shukhman that he did not have a problem with alcohol depe ndence and that he only consumed a lcohol once or twice pe r we ek. ¶ 20 Shukhman presc ribed Ba rry Adder all to help with his ADHD, and Ba rry contende d that he used this medication appropriately

. Shukhman’s notes, howeve r, reve aled that during the first mont h t h at Ba rry took Adder all, Ba rry called Shukhman on October 6, 2009, and
reque sted that Shukhman write a new presc ription for it, beca use Ba rry had run out of it prior
to his October 12 appointment. These notes also disclosed that prior t o Ba rry ’s term of imprisonment in Dec ember 2009, he informed Shukhman that he was “ ‘doing quite well’ ” and that he felt “ver

y balanc ed.” Howeve r, during Ba rry ’s first appointment with Shukhman followinghis prison relea se, he told Shukhman that his problems wer e due to a lcohol. ¶ 21 Acc ording to Ba rry , he opposed remova l of the mi nors t o Geor g ia. Barr y t es t i fi ed t hat th e s ch o o ls in Geor g ia wer e “behind” those in I llinois

. He also admitted that he had not worke d since Dec ember 2008, at which time he held a job f or one day befor e g etting fired. Although Ba

rry co l l ec t ed unemploy

ment until November 2009, he did not pay Be th any

-5-support for the minors. Ba rry also testified that he had not left a threa tening voice mail or email for Be th since November 2009, and he had not consumed alcohol since Dec ember 2009. He b el i ev ed that he had alre ady been punished for his behavior and wanted the minors to return to I llinois

. Ba

rry nonetheless acknow ledg ed he verba lly abused Be th and that the time he had spe nt in prison could not undo the mental terror he ca used her

. ¶ 22 Be t h t es t i fi ed t h at as ear ly as 2004 or 2005, Ba rry ’s alcohol consumption beca me a “noticea ble problem” and that, around that time, he also beg an smoking canna bis, spending excessively
, g ambling, and vi ewing p o rn o gra p hy

. Ba rry informed her t hat he was abusing his Adder all m ed ication by taking double his rec ommended dosag e. Be th stated that his
presc ription bottl e wa s ty pically empty one we ek bef

ore it should have be en. ¶ 23 Be th also stated t hat Barr y had left a messag e thre atening to car ve the letter A into her hear t, but this messag e was not included on either CD compiled by the Mokena police. Be th also stated that in the past, Ba rry had ref

ere nced the O. J

. S i m pson case and stated that he would kill her if she ever had an aff air. Be th fea

red that Ba

rry would follow through on this threat, as he had threatened to send a letter to her extended family disclosing that she had had a child at a g e 18, and he had subseque ntly done so. ¶ 24 Be th stated that she wa s “f ea rf u l ” and “ter

rified” of Ba

rry

. Be th explained that she reloc ated to Geor g ia on the day befor e Ba rry was rele ased from prison in J une 2010 and that since then, she has no longer had to “look over

[her] shoul der a fter the threats that [Barr y ] made.” Be th acknow ledg ed that she reloc ated without first asking permission from the court, but she contende d that she did not know s he needed permission. Acc ordingto Be th, Ba rry subsequently informed the minors that Be th violated the law by taking them to Geor g ia and that he and his family wer e ang ry

. Be th also disclosed that she had rec ently had conver sations with Ba rry that wer e to perta in to the minors, and she still saw “the signs of the ang er and the obsession ***, and [t hat Ba rry] just [came] at [her] with acc usations still .” Be th testified that she was raising the minors in the J ewish faith, which was Ba rry ’s faith and not her own, and that she had also purcha sed g ifts for the minors and told them that the g ifts wer e from Ba rry

. ¶ 25 In Geor g ia, Be th and the minors resided with her fathe r and his wife, wher e they share d

a four- bedroom home. Be th believed that the schools in Georg ia wer e equivalent to those in I llinois and that the children wer e doing well and wer e eng ag ed in extracurr icular activities. Be th’s fathe r supported them financ ially
, and he and his wife also helped with child car e and transportation. ¶ 26 Be t h al s o b el i ev ed t hat she had better employ ment opportunities in Geor g ia. B eth explained that in I llinois , she had w orked a s a school psycholog ist and last ear ned a salary of $48,000 per y ear

. Howeve r, she obtained an administrator’s cer tificate in Geor g ia and was elig ible for jobs that paid $60,000 to $70,000 per y ear

. Be th also stated that the cost of living in Georg ia was less than in I llinois

. She explained that befor e she and the minors moved to Geor g ia, they lived in an apar tment in a secur e building due to her fea r of Ba rry , which further incre ased he r cost of living

. ¶ 27 Bet h s t at ed t hat she would cooper ate with visitation. She explained that the minors’ school schedule provided a summer vacation from the end of May until August, wee k-long brea ks in September, November
, Fe bruar y and April, and a two-we ek brea k in Dec ember and

-6-J anuar y

. Be th was also open to wee kend visitation. Be th was willing to purcha se the minors’ plane tickets betwee n I llinois and Geor g ia, and she stated that these tickets cost $120 round trip if purcha sed i n advanc e. Eit her Beth or an airline escor t would acc ompany the m inors on their trips. ¶ 28 Be th wanted visitation to be supervised, and beca use she enjoy ed a clo s e re lationship with Ba rbar a and J udy
, she believed they could supervise and fac ilitate visitation, espec ially
g iven that Ba

rry resided with J u d y

. Be th explained that she wanted to keep visitation supervised beca

use Ba rry had y et to rec eive any treatment for his alcohol abuse or obsessive and control l i n g b eh av ioral issues. She also expressed a fea r that Ba rry would resume his prior behavior once he completed his term of parole and the remova l issue was deter mined. The rec o rd i n dicates that at the start of the second day of the hear ing, Be th stated that she “would li ke the visitation to g o forw ar d this wee k” and that the m inors wer e going to stay with Ba rbar a for the wee kend. B eth per

mitted Murr to determine the specific terms of that

wee kend’s visitation. ¶ 29 Murr issued a repor t and testified. Murr explained that the instant case was her first one serving as a GAL

. Murr also testified that at the time she prepa red her repor

t, Ba rry had not informed he r of his pre vious alcohol use and did not fur nish her with his medical re cords. ¶ 30 Murr opined that t h e co u rt should deny Be th’s petition for remova l. Murr spec ifically indicated that she “ha[d] conce rns that [Beth] l ef t t h eir home, a job, and uprooted the children without permission of th[ e] court based upon her need to fee l ‘saf er’ .” Murr further stated t h at Ba rry had never been phy sically abusive to Be th and that he could make threatening phone calls to Be th whether she lived in I llinois or Geor g ia. Murr conclude d that Be th’s “fe ar [did] not seem re asonable in light of a ll the circumstanc es.” ¶ 31 Murr repor

ted that Ba

rry “ada mantly believe[d] that [Beth] had an aff air and admit[ ted]
to be[ing] occupie d with that idea.” Ba rry also expressed conce rn that the minors would not

answe r his questions reg arding their wher eabouts or daily activities. Murr’s repor t indicated that L anie “[was] tired of [Barr y ] talking about [Beth] a

nd wanted him to stop.” L anie also disclosed that Ba

rry told her that they wer e moving back to I llinois

. Be th informed Murr that this information upset L anie, and L anie informed Murr that “she [di d not] want to move and her life would b e ru i n ed

. ” Murr rela ted that Dylan was open to living in either I llinois or Geor g ia. Murr also explained that she sent an e-ma il to Ba rry and Be th reque sting that they
not speak of the pending remova l case with the minors, even though the e-ma il was prompted only by Ba rry

. ¶ 32 Murr disclosed that L anie had hear d her pare nts fig ht when they all resided toge ther and that she “re member[ed Ba rry] pushing [Beth] and throwing the key s.” Murr acknow ledg ed that L anie be lieved that B arr y may harm B eth. ¶ 33 Murr stated that she di d not believe that Be th’s or t he mi nors’ li ves would b e b ett er in Geor g ia, as Be th had “plenty of family” in I llinois to help her. Although the rec ord does not indicate that Murr knew Be th’s daily work schedule
, she stated that “[t] here was no need for daycar e” when Be th and the minors lived in I llinois beca use Be th worke d at a school and had a sche dule that mirrore d the minors’. ¶ 34 Murr d i d n o t b el i ev e a rea sonable visitation schedule could be rea ched if the minors

-7-continued to reside in Geor g ia. She explained that althoug h Ba rry had seen the minors once in the past 14 months, the proposed visitation would not be sufficie nt to allow Ba rry to bond with the minors, as the minors could only visit “f our times dur ing the school year plus two holiday brea

ks.” Murr acknow ledg ed that she observe d a visit betwee n Ba rry and the minors and that Dylan ran up to Ba rry and L anie was “all smiles a nd g igg ling.” Murr believed that Ba rry and the minors interac t ed well and that the minors obeyed him, and the minors ref ere nced visitingBa

rry ag ain. ¶ 35 Murr believed that Ba rry ’s v i s i t ation with the minors should be supervised, as B arr y “ha[d] y et to work throug h all his ang er at [Beth] and he may be apt t o say things to the children about [Beth] in ang er whether direc tly or indirectly .” Murr acknow ledg ed that Ba rry

was curr ently seeing a counselor, and the counselor repor ted to he r that she did not believe that Ba rry was likely to resor

t to violence ag ainst Be th or the mino rs , “c o n s i d ering that [Barr y ] had not been phy sically violent in the past.” ¶ 36 The court took the matter of remova l under advisement. T h e co u rt al s o rese rved the
matter of Ba

rry ’s visitation, finding that it would have to rule on visitation notwithstanding whether it g rante d or denied Be th’s petition for remova l. The court then stated that the parties could try to work out a visitation schedule
, and that if they could not, one party could file a motion with t he cour

t and it would set visitation. Barr y responde d “[s] ure.” ¶ 37 The court grante d Be th’s petition for remova l. The court conclude d that Be th’s testimony
reg arding Ba

rry ’s previous behavior an d h er co ntinuing fea r of him wer e cre dible, and it noted “appa lling examples of [Barr y ’s] violating behavior s, inclu d i n g v o i ce mails and emails.” T h e co u rt also found that Ba rry ’s abusive behavior s wer e not entirely due to his alcohol consumption, and it noted that he had issues with le g al and illega l drug s as well as his mental health. The court also expressed conce rn that Ba rry had not disclosed his suicide attempt, depre ssion, borderline persona lity disorder, or obsessive behavior to Dr

. Sh u k hman. The c ourt found that “[Ba rry] remain[ed] a thre at to [Beth].” ¶ 38 Reg arding the fac tors articulated by the supreme court in In re Marriage of Eck ert , 119 I ll. 2d 316 (1988), the court found that Be th wanted to move to Geor g ia due to a fea r of Ba rry that “[was] well founded in fac t.” The court found that Ba rry o b j ec t ed t o t h e move to prese rve his relationship with the min ors, and thus, both motives wer e without fault. The
court further found that Be th’s quality of life was enhanc ed in Geor gi a b eca use she lived without fea

r of Ba rry , and noted that Bet h ’s and the minors’ needs wer e provided for in Geor g ia. ¶ 39 The court further found that visitation betwee n Ba rry and t h e m i n o rs wa s l i m i t ed
, whether the m inors resided in I llinois or Georg ia, due t o Ba rry ’s ankle monitoring device, the order of protec tion that was n o t s et t o expire until J uly 26, 2012, and the need for visitation to be sup er v i s ed

. The court believed that a rea sonable and rea listi c visitation schedule could be rea ched due to the minors’ liberal school brea k schedule and Be th’s close relationship with J udy and Ba rbar a. The court further stated that “[p] hone and Sky pe communications would be available.” ¶ 40 The court also noted that Ba rry did not consistently obey court order s, g iven his r epeated violation of the orders o f protec tion, and that he failed to rec og nize his shortcoming s and

-8-b l am ed his problems on alcohol. The court also stated t hat i t was “not convince d * * * t h at

once the ankle brac elet [was] remove d that [ Ba rry ’s] past behavior will not resur fac e as [Barr y had] not taken sufficie nt steps to gua rd ag ainst relapse .” ¶ 41 Ba

rry appea led.

¶ 42 ANALYSI S ¶ 43 I . Removal ¶ 44 Ba

rry argues that the trial co u rt er re d wh en it g rante d Be th’s petition for r emoval. Specifica lly
, Ba

rry argues that the trial court improperly considere d the evidenc e in light of the applica

ble law a nd eff ectively shifted the burde n of proof to him. ¶ 45 Section 609(a) of the I llinois Marr iag e and Dissolution of Marr iag e Act (Ac t) (750 I L CS 5/609(a) ( West 2008)) provides, in re levant par t: “The court may g rant leave *** to any party having cu s t o d y o f any minor child or children to remove such child or children from I llinois whene ver such approva l is in the best interests of such child or children. The burden of proving that such remova l is in the best interests of suc h child or childre n is on the party seekingthe re moval.” ¶ 46 In Eck

ert , 119 I ll. 2d 316, the supreme court held that a ruling on the best interests of the child i n a remova l action nece ssarily involves a car eful consideration of the specific circ umstances of eac h individual case. R ev i ewing courts g rant g reat defe renc e to the trial court’s remova l decision ( Eck ert , 119 I ll. 2d 316), as the trial court is in the best position to observe the parties and assess their persona lities and capa biliti es. In re Marriage of Guthrie
, 392 I ll. App. 3d 169 (2009). “The presumption in favor of the result rea ched by the trial court is alway s strong and compelling ” ( Eck ert , 119 I ll. 2d at 330); thus, we will not reve rse a trial court’s ruling on a petition for remova l unless it is contra ry to the manifest wei gh t of the evidenc e ( Guthrie , 392 I ll. App. 3d 169). A judg ment is a g ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e when the opposite conclusion is clea rly appar ent or when the trial court’s finding s

are unrea sonable, arbitra

ry o r n o t b as ed on the evidenc e. In re Custody of K.P.L.
, 304 I ll. App. 3d 481 (1999). ¶ 47 The Eck

ert court set fort h five fac tors for courts to consider when deciding a re moval petition: (1) “the proposed move in terms of likelihood for enhanc ing the g ener al quality of life for both the custodial pare nt a nd the children” ; ( 2) “the motives of the custodial pare nt in seeking the move to deter mine whether the remova l is mere ly a ruse intended to defe at or fru s t ra t e v isitation”; (3) “the m otives of the noncustodial pare nt in resisting the removal”; (4 ) “t he visitation rig hts of the noncustodial pare nt”; and (5) “whe ther *** a rea listi c an d

rea sonable visitation schedule can be rea ched if the move is allowed.” Eck ert , 119 I ll. 2d at 326-27. Reg arding visitation, a trial court may proper ly consi d er t h e degree to which the noncustodial pare nt has exercised his visitation in the past. In re M arriage of Repond, 349 I ll. App. 3d 910 (2004); see also Eck ert , 119 I ll. 2d 316 (trial court may consider the fac t that a noncustodial pa

rent objec ts to removal, but has not exercised his visitation rights). ¶ 48 The Eck

ert fac tors are not exclusive, howeve r, and the trial court should consider any and all rele vant evidenc e in arr iving at its decision. In re Marriage of Colli ngbourne
, 204 I ll. 2d

-9-498 (2003). No single fac t or fac tor is controll i n g, and the weight to be g iven eac h varie s

from case to case

. Colli ngbourne
, 204 I ll. 2d 498. The trial court may furth er consider the potential of the reloc ation to incre ase the g ener al quality of life for both the custodial pare nt and the child re n , including any benef it the children may rec eive from enhanc ement of the custodial pare nt’s well-be ing. Ford v. Martene ss , 368 I ll. App. 3d 172 (2006). ¶ 49 I n t h is case , the court hear d extensive testimony and properly considere d the evi d en ce in light of Eck

ert and its prog eny

. Our revie w of t h e rec ord reve als that the trial court’s deter mination to grant Be th’s petition for remova l was not ag ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e. ¶ 50 First, considering the Eck ert fac tors, our revie w of the rec ord does not reve al that either Be th or Ba

rry acte d in bad faith in either seeking or challeng ing the remova l of the children
to Georg ia. Specifica lly
, Ba rry testified that he opposed remova l beca use he felt as if he wer e

rec overingfrom his alcohol and behavior al problems and desired to spend more time with his children. Be th, on the o t h er hand, sought to reloc ate to Geor g ia just prior to Ba rry ’s rele ase from priso n i n order to fee l safe from Ba rry ’s abuse, as well as to have financ ial, emotional, and chil d ca re s upport from her fathe r and his wife. Thus, Be th did not seek

remova l as a ruse to frustrate Ba rry ’s visitation. ¶ 51 Fur

thermore
, reg arding Ba

rry ’s visitation and whether a re as o n ab l e schedule could be

rea ched with a reloc ation to Geor g ia, the trial court proper ly noted that under the circ umstances of this case , the parties could rea ch a rea sonable and rea listi c v i s itation schedule

. The rec ord indicates that the children’ s school schedule in Ge o rgi a provided fre quent breaks t hat l asted at least one wee k. Addi t i o n ally
, the court corr ectly noted t hat a

curr ent order of protec tion and the supervised nature of Ba rry ’s vi sitation place d limit s on the vi sitation. We note t hat t hese lim its ex ist whether B eth and the c hildren live i n I llinois or Ge org ia. We further

note that prior to B arr

y ’s term of imprisonment and the remova l of the childre n to Georg ia, he did not consistently exercise his visitation with the minors. ¶ 52 We also ag ree with the trial court’s finding that the proposed move will benef it both Be th and the children. Be th testified that since she has moved to Geor g ia, she does not live in fea r of Ba rry

. We believe that Be th’s fea r of Barr y i s real and rea sonable, as he left numerous voice mails and e-ma ils wishing her death and has violated the order s of protec tion. Fur ther,

as the trial court found, Ba rry has not soug ht help for the alcohol or behavior al problems that he claims wer e the source of the threats. We conclude that Be th’s ability to live without fea r of Ba rry direc tly enhanc es her life, and provides an indirect benef it to the children. Compare In re Marriage of Krivi
, 283 I ll. App. 3d 772, 776 (1996) (appe ll ate court reve rsed trial court’s g rant of mother’s remova l petition, and noted that althoug h the parties eng ag ed in a phy sical alterc ation, the rec ord did not indicate a “patter n of violence” in the ir rela tionship and the f ather regularly exercised his visitation). ¶ 53 Additionally
, the rec ord indicates that Be th has shown cooper ation in the past by raising the minors in Ba

rry ’s faith and by purcha sing g ifts for the children and telling them they wer e from Ba rry

. Fur thermore
, Be th will have assistance with child car e, discipline, and financ es from her fathe r and his wife

. ¶ 54 Over all, this rec ord i ndicates that the primary cata ly st for Beth’s move to Geor g ia was

-10-her fea r of Ba rry , which was rea sonable under the circ umstances. We do not believe the trial
court failed to consider the evidenc e in light of Eck ert or that the trial court’s deter mination to gr ant B eth’s petition for r emoval wa s ag ainst the manifest we ight of the evidenc e.

¶ 55 I I . Visitation ¶ 56 Ba rr y n ex t contends that the t rial court err ed because it failed to provide him with an y visitation rig hts, and it improperly relied on the availability of elec tr o n i c communications when it g rante d Be th’s petition for re moval. ¶ 57 Pursuant to section 607(a) of the Act, a noncustodial pare nt is entitl ed t o re asonable

v isitation, unless visitation would seriously endang er the phy sical, mental, moral, o r emotional health of the children. 750 I L CS 5/ 607(a) (West 2008). The tria l court i s vested with broad discretion in deter mining matters of visitation, and we will not d i s turb a trial court’s decision as to visitation unless the t ri al court abuses its discretion, or wher e a manifest injusti ce has been done to the children or the pare nt. In re Marriage ofDiehl
, 221 I ll. App. 3d 410 (1991). ¶ 58 A party cannot complain o f an all eg ed err or to which he consente d. See McM ath v. Katholi
, 191 I ll. 2d 251 (2000). Fur therm o re , a party must proper ly prese rve an issue for appellate revie w by objecting to the alleg ed err or at trial. See Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar , 174 I ll. 2d 1 (1996). ¶ 59 I n this case , Ba rry is incorre ct when he asser ts on appea l that the trial cour t fa i l ed t o provide him with any visitation. Rather, the trial court stated that whether it g rante d or denied Be th’s petition for remova l, a visitation schedule would have to be rea ched. The court then stated that if the parties could not agree on a visitation schedule
, then either party could file

a motion and t h e co u rt woul d conduct a hear ing on visitation. Ba rry responde d “[s] ure.” Thus, the rec ord direc tly rebuts Ba rry ’s contention that the trial court failed to pr ovide him with visitation. Moreove r, not only did Ba rry n o t object to the trial court’s proce dure, he
consente d to it. ¶ 60 In any event, Bar ry has not cited, and we have not found, authority fo r t h e proposition that a trial court must provide a visitation schedule befor e or at the same time it offe rs a judgme nt on a petitio n fo r re moval. See In re Marriage of Marsh
, 343 I ll. App. 3d 1235 (2 0 0 3 ) (cour

t held a hear ing in which it deter mined custody of the minors at is s u e, b u t

re serve d the matter of visitation); see also K.P.L.
, 304 I ll. App. 3d 481 (in a gu ar d i an s h i p proce eding
, this court aff irmed the trial court’s d ec i s i on to rese rve the matter of a natura l fathe r’s visitation). ¶ 61 We further conclude that the trial court did not violate the terms of section 609(c) of the Act when it g rante d Be th’s petition for remova l by noting the availability of elec tronic means of communication. ¶ 62 Pursuant to section 609(c) of the Act, a “cour t may not use the availability of ele ctronic communication as a fac tor in support of a remova l of a child b y the custodial pare nt from I llinois .” 750 I L CS 5/609(c) (Wes t 2 0 10). Her e, howeve r, the court’s ref ere nce to the elec tronic communication was made in passing while discussing Ba rry ’s visitation potential. Specifica lly
, the court noted that Ba rry was restra ined by his ankle monitoring device and an

-11-order of protec tion, that Be th would cooper ate with visitation from Geor g ia due to her close

relationship with Ba

rbar a and J udy
, that visitation could occur during the wee k-long brea ks from school and over the summer, and that “[p] hone and Sky pe communications would be available .” Given this context, we conc l u d e that the trial court did not improperly rely on elec tronic communication as a rea son to g rant Be th’s petition for remova l. The court simply mentioned this fac tor in discussing the opportunities for in-person visitation from Geor g ia, and it did not emphasize it.

¶ 63 CONCLUSI ON ¶ 64 For

the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the trial c ourt of Will C ounty is affirme d.

¶ 65 Affir

med.

-12-