Removal of Child in Illinois
Petitioner did not carry her burden of providing that moving child to Georgia would be in child’s best interest, but instead the evidence demonstrated that child’s visitation with respondent would decrease by at least 50% and her interaction with her relative would also be significantly diminished; though the quality of child’s life in Georgia might possibly be better in a material sense, it would be diminished in many important ways, and because child’s best interest was not reflected in trial court’s determination to permit removal of child from Illinois, it was found to be against the removal of child from Illinois, it was found to be against the manifest weight of the evidence. Tysl v. Levine
In cases where the parties were never married, the custodial parent is not required to file a petition for removal, thus, the court will not yet have engaged in a best interest of the child analysis to determine whether the custodial parent should be allowed to remove the minor child from the state, therefore, where the parties were never married, the fact that a custodial parent wishes to move out of the state with the minor child is sufficient to show a changes of circumstances which would satisfy the first prong of 750 ILCS 5/610 and the court would then be required to engage in a best interests of the child analysis, utilizing the factors enumerated in this section. In re R.M.F.
It is the province of the trial court to determine whether removal of child from Illinois to Colorado would permit degree of involvement and cooperation between parents and child that would foster their son’s physical, mental, moral and emotional well-being. In re Bednar
Where the father having custody of the minor child had moved to Mississippi with the child since the hearing, and modification of the custody order because of changes in circumstances arising since the hearing should have been initiated in the trial court pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/610. Melear v. Melear
For a case discussing custodial’s parent removal of children to another state, see Garland v. Garland
Subsequent to a divorce decree, the court granting such decree retains continuing jurisdiction of the parties with regard to children of the marriage, custody and support; a party may not avoid this continuing jurisdiction of the trial court which entered the original divorce decree by moving outside the court’s geographical jurisdiction. Crawley v. Bauchens
The best interests of the child required her expatriation with her mother in Germany for a period of 11 months and her return to the United States for one month in the summer, rather than living with the father in the United States because the mother had sufficient financial resources and was otherwise able to care for said child. Radivojevic v. Radivojevic
Under former Ill.Rev.Stat., Ch. 40 para. 19 (1967) (see now this section), the removal of a child from the jurisdiction was not alone sufficient grounds for a change of custody. Norris v. Norris
The removal of the parties’ child to Ohio when the mother moved there with her second husband was not grounds for revoking her custody. Jingling v. Trtanj
The court should grant permission to take the children out of the jurisdiction if it is deemed to be for the best interests of the children; the court should make such provisions as are reasonably necessary to protect the rights given the father as the non-custodial parent in the divorce. Trimble v. Trimble
Custody of children may be awarded to a non-resident on a showing of circumstances which would better promote the welfare and interests of the children; all other considerations will be subordinate to the children’s welfare. Trimble v. Trimble