Court Opinion

ID: 9518572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:56:07.150429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:34.949276
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SLATER, dissenting: I do not agree that the trial court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and therefore I respectfully dissent. The record shows that the children’s father was involved in the PTA, helped the children with their homework after school, and participated in extracurricular activities. He has been a room parent since the children began attending school. On the other hand, the children’s mother stated that she helps the children with their homework “once in a great while.” In addition, the children’s maternal and paternal grandparents live in the Quad Cities area, and the children have friends at school. The majority speculates about the benefits of the “new and successful marriage relationship” (216 Ill. App. 3d at 1081) to be established by the mother which would provide the children with a “traditional family setting” (216 Ill. App. 3d at 1082) where the mother does not work and she can devote her time and energy to the children. The majority decides that these benefits outweigh the loss of daily contact between the children and their father and the diminished opportunities for the children to visit their grandparents. While such a finding is not inherently unreasonable and might be appropriate if this court were the trier of fact, I find such a decision unacceptable from a court of review for several reasons. First, the mother bears the burden in this case of proving that removal of the children is in their best interests. (In re Marriage of Eckert (1988), 119 Ill. 2d 316, 326, 518 N.E.2d 1041, 1045.) The evidence here was closely balanced and the trial court found that the mother failed to carry this burden. Under the facts presented here, I do not believe the court’s decision “is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence and it appears that a manifest injustice has occurred” (emphasis added) (Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d at 328, 518 N.E.2d at 1046). Second, “[wjhen a parent has assiduously exercised his or her visitation rights, ‘a court should be loath to interfere with it by permitting removal of the children for *** unpersuasive or inadequate reasons.’ ” (Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d at 327, 518 N.E.2d at 1046, quoting D’Onfrio v. D’Onfrio (1976), 144 N.J. Super. 200, 206, 365 A.2d 27, 30.) There is no question that the children’s father was intimately involved in raising and educating them and I believe that the majority’s decision fails to give sufficient weight to this fact. Finally, I agree with the majority that the proper inquiry in cases of this nature is “not what is ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’ for each parent, but what is best for the affected children” (216 Ill. App. 3d at 1082). This case illustrates just how difficult it can be to make such a determination. That is why it is paramount for a court of review to give proper deference to the trial court, which has the opportunity to observe the parents and other witnesses and “ ‘assess and evaluate their temperaments, personalities, and capabilities. *** The presumption in favor of the result reached by the trial court is always strong and compelling in this type of case’ ” (Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d at 330, 518 N.E.2d at 1047, quoting Gallagher v. Gallagher (1978), 60 Ill. App. 3d 26, 31-32, 376 N.E.2d 279, 283). I would affirm the decision of the circuit court.