Court Opinion

ID: 9544400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:55:25.155881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:55.568520
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HUTCHINSON, dissenting: The sole issue raised on appeal is whether petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of her standing to bring the petition for custody. Section 601(b)(2) provides an avenue for nonparents to petition for custody of a child. It states: "(b) A child custody proceeding is commenced in the court: * * * (2) by a person other than a parent, by filing a petition for custody of the child in the county in which he is permanently resident or found, but only if he is not in the physical custody of one of his parents.” (Emphasis added.) 750 ILCS 5/601(b)(2) (West 1992). Questions of physical custody involve both factual determinations and policy considerations. The mere fact that a child is not in the physical possession of a parent is insufficient to establish that the child is not in the physical custody of the parent. (In re Custody of Peterson (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 48, 52-53.) In applying section 601(b)(2) we have stated that how the nonparent comes into physical possession of the child and the duration of the possession are both proper factors to be considered by the trial court. (In re Marriage of Santa Cruz (1988) , 172 Ill. App. 3d 775, 783.) We have also found the manner and nature of the possession to be relevant facts. (In re Marriage of Carey (1989) , 188 Ill. App. 3d 1040, 1048.) There is no "litmus test” as a matter of law to determine whether a child is in the physical custody of a parent. (In re Custody of Kulawiak (1993), 256 Ill. App. 3d 956, 961.) Because no one factor controls, such a determination depends heavily on the particular facts of each case. In re Marriage of Carey, 188 Ill. App. 3d at 1048. Furthermore, the plain meaning of the words "prove,” "show,” and "burden of proof’ indicates a duty to make apparent or clear by evidence. (Black’s Law Dictionary 1224, 1379, 196 (6th ed. 1990).) As the majority has pointed out, Illinois is a fact-pleading jurisdiction. (Washington v. Chicago Board of Education (1990), 204 Ill. App. 3d 1091, 1096.) For better or for worse, our court system requires that factual issues be resolved through the presentation of evidence. The factual findings of trial courts are given great deference. (In re Childress (1990) 138 Ill. 2d 87, 99 (referring to all fact finders).) This deference is accorded because trial courts bring all their senses to bear in determining credibility, while appellate courts are limited to reviewing a pale printed transcription of what trial judges actually observe. (See McDonald v. Industrial Comm’n (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 396, 403.) In this case, the trial court made specific findings that petitioner was "without standing” and had "not met her burden of proving that she has standing,” but those factual findings were made without the benefit and the safeguards of an evidentiary hearing. I believe this was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in light of the purpose of section 601(b)(2), an extraordinary piece of legislation. (See Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745, 753, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 606, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1394; Stanley v. Illinois (1972), 405 U.S. 645, 651-52, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551, 558-59, 92 S. Ct. 1208, 1212-13; In re Enis (1988), 121 Ill. 2d 124, 128-29 (establishing parents possess a fundamental liberty interest, secured by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, in the custody and nurturing of their children).) It provides that a nonparent may seek modification of a parent’s fundamental rights. The General Assembly would not lightly enact such legislation and may have been motivated by the many reported cases in which parents, for a variety of reasons, cease to play a part in their children’s lives. Section 601(b)(2) is directed at those cases to protect children where modification of custody would be in the children’s best interest, even though the parent or parents might not be "[u]nfit person[s].” (See 750 ILCS 50/l(D) (West 1992).) If this is not the purpose of section 601(b)(2), then it is merely duplicative of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1 et seq. (West 1992)) and the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1 — 1 et seq. (West 1992)). When a child’s well-being is at stake, the trial court should view the evidence before making a factual finding that eliminates a protection afforded that child by valid legislation. I also am unable to concur with the majority that petitioner had to show that respondent relinquished legal custody of the children. The language of section 601(b)(2) refers to physical custody. In Peterson the supreme court said that physical custody did not necessarily mean actual physical custody (Peterson, 112 Ill. 2d at 54), but the supreme court did not say that the terms "physical custody” and "legal custody” were interchangeable. Nor did the supreme court hold or imply that legal custody was more or less legally significant than physical custody. Only recently has another appellate court district in this State taken the position that relinquishment of legal custody is the standard (In re Marriage of Dile (1993), 248 Ill. App. 3d 683), and that case relies on Peterson to reach that end. I respectfully suggest that such reliance is misplaced. The Peterson case and those cases decided closely thereafter which relied on the Peterson case did not deal with joint custody situations. Therefore, these cases were not required to reconcile the language of the statute defining joint custody (750 ILCS 5/602.1 (West 1992)) with the traditional custodian/noncustodian situations they were reviewing. Pursuant to the statute, parents are joint custodians of the children, but one parent is generally charged with the responsibility of providing the "physical residence” (750 ILCS 5/602.1(d)(1), (d)(2) (West 1992)) for the children or is designated the primary residential parent. These terms are significant in light of the "not in the physical custody of one of his parents” mandate of section 601(b)(2). Furthermore, the term "legal custody” is not found in any statutory section that is being applied or referenced by the majority. "Legal custody” is defined as a "[Restraint of or responsibility for a person according to law, such as a guardian’s authority over the person or property, or both, of his ward.” (Black’s Law Dictionary 893 (6th ed. 1990).) Parents do not relinquish legal custody. Parents have legal custody of their children by virtue of their status as biological parents. Otherwise, only a court may grant, modify, or terminate (i.e., force a parent to relinquish) legal custody. (See In re Custody of Roberts (1982), 107 Ill. App. 3d 913, 918 (stating parties cannot surrender the rights of a child by agreement).) While parents’ conduct may give a court reason to terminate legal custody, that conduct does not independently end the parents’ rights. If, as the majority holds, lack of physical custody actually means lack of legal custody, the only situations addressed by section 601(b)(2) are those in which (1) a court has previously terminated both parents’ legal custody; (2) both parents are dead; or (3) a combination of (1) and (2). It is clear that in this case a trial court approved a joint parenting agreement and entered a joint custody order, but that action was taken pursuant to statutory authority that states: "(a) The dissolution of marriage, the declaration of invalidity of marriage, the legal separation of the parents, or the parents living separate and apart shall not diminish parental powers, rights, and responsibilities ***.” (750 ILCS 5/602.1(a) (West 1992).) It appears equally clear that certain circumstances require judicial intervention to determine legal custody rather than to determine if legal custody has been relinquished even after a joint custody order is entered. The most obvious circumstance is that in which a surviving joint custodian does not have physical custody of the children of the previous marriage. Accordingly, I would remand for an evidentiary hearing on the question of lack of physical custody, and I respectfully dissent.