Chicago Child Visitation Lawyer

 Subsection (d) of this section vests the trial court with the discretion to dispose of non-marital assets as it determines, pursuant to its plan of resolution of the property issues.  Eckert v. Eckert
Range of Reason
 A circuit court judge’s resolution of property division is fettered only by the range of reason, and his judgment will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.  In re Lee
Dissipation
Accountability
 A person charged with dissipation is obliged to establish by clear and convincing evidence how the funds were spent; general and vague statements that the funds were spent on marital expenses or to pay bills are inadequate to avoid a finding of dissipation.  In re Meadow
Benefit of Children
 A transfer of marital assets does not escape classification as dissipation merely because it is to, or for, the benefit of children of the marriage; expenditure for the children’s immediate reasonable needs is a permissible use of marital funds, however, excessive expenditures, even if for a permissible purpose, may constitute a dissipation of marital assets.  In re Yong Sun Lee

 The trial court erred in failing to reimburse marital estate for its contributions to three non-marital life insurance policies of husband since subdivision (c)(2) of this section mandates reimbursement to the contributing estate for contributions retraceable by clear and convincing evidence.  In re Ryman
Owner of Land Trust
 As the owner of the entire beneficial interest in land trust prior to the marriage, husband was the “owner” of the property for purposes of determining contributions to the marital estate, and the trial court did not err in concluding that he made a greater contribution to the acquisition of the marital residence.  In re Marriott
Specific Dollar Value
 Although the trial court did not place a dollar value on contributions of each party to acquisition of the marital estate, such specific finding was not required by the statute nor was it prerequisite to the validity of property division orders.  In re Lee

In General
 Pursuant to subsection (j)(2), the trial court may consider the relevant economic circumstances of the parties in ruling on a contribution petition.  In re Delarco
 This section incorporates a partnership theory of marriage, and thus an order disposing of the parties’ property should recognize and compensate each party for his or her contribution to the marriage.  In re Calisoff
 An order of distribution need not necessarily reflect the respective contributions of each party.  In re Wentink

Both Spouses
 The court adequately considered the contribution of each of the parties to the acquisition of the marital estate where it found the wife’s contribution to the marriage for 18 ½ years as a farm wife and homemaker, and eventually as a wage earner, to be equal to the husband’s contribution as a farmer and wage earner for the same period in addition to his contribution as a homemaker for 18 months after the parties’ separation.  In re Moll
 Where both parties have made more than nominal, though not equal, contributions toward acquisition of marital assets, absent countervailing factors, this tends to support the proposition that both parties should share, though not equally, the marital property.  In re Clearman

Burden
 The burden of proving a significant contribution is on the moving party, and even if a significant contribution were to be established, the presumption of transmutation created by the contribution may be rebutted with evidence that a gift of the non-marital property was not intended.  In re Aud
 Under subsection (c) of this section, the burden rests on the spouse claiming contribution to the acquisition of marital property to trace that contribution.  In re Van Ness
Extent
 The evidence of wife’s contribution of $1,000 in savings, several months’ outside employment over a period of 20 years, and assistance in answering the phone and making entries was too minimal to justify conveyance to her of one-half of all the property, including business assets and equipment, under former Ill.Rev.Stat., Ch 40, para. 18 (see now this section). Overton v. Overton

 Where the father, who murdered the mother’s boyfriend and attempted to murder the mother during the divorce proceedings, was sentenced to prison for the rest of the father’s life, the trial court erred in refusing to set aside, pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/503(g), the father’s non-marital funds for child support purposes, as the father, due to incarceration, was unable to make child support payments.  Hari v. Hari
 It is improper to award the property in a divorce action to the children because this Act contemplates the division of marital property between the spouses; the duty of support normally continues only during the minority of the child and there is no provision in the Act authorizing an outright conveyance of marital property even in trust which is unrelated to a child’s support or maintenance.  In re Smith

 Where clear language of the prenuptial agreement stated that husband’s house remained his property, wife was not entitled to reimbursement for any contributions made to the house other than for specific contribution made to help pay off mortgage for which the agreement was modified to provide for reimbursement.  In re Stufflebeam

 Section 506(a)(3) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/506(a)(3) was unconstitutional as applied in this case because the child’s representative’s report was adverse to the mother and she was deprived of her due process under U.S. Const. Amend IV, and Ill. Const. 1970, Art. I, § 2 to cross-examine the representative.  One of the fundamental rights protected under the fourteenth amendment is the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children without unwarranted state intrusion.  In re Marriage of De Bates
 

 Modification of a visitation order was permitted when the modification would be in the child’s best interests, and thus, the trial court should have considered the best interest determination factors set forth in 750 ILCS 5/602 before deciding whether the mother’s petition to modify visitation to allow the mother and child to move to Florida should have been granted.  DeBilio v. Rodgers
 The fact that respondent had moved to this state, that she would not allow the children to visit another state, that the children’s father was confined to a wheelchair, that grandmother was able to travel to this state to visit her grandchildren with their father only at tremendous inconvenience due to her age and her husband’s inability to accompany her, all established the inadequacy of visitation under a previous judgment.  Lyons v. Lyons
 A petition seeking visitation with a child who has been moved from one county to another is not an appropriate issue to be raised or decided on a motion to dismiss, and may properly be resolved by a hearing to determine what is in the child’s best interest.  Padin v. Padin
 Evidence of failure to visit is insufficient, of itself, to support a finding of unfitness.  Chick v. Massey

 Modification of a visitation order was permitted when the modification would be in the child’s best interests, and thus, the trial court should have considered the best interest determination factors set forth in 750 ILCS 5/602 before deciding whether the mother’s petition to modify visitation to allow the mother and child to move to Florida should have been granted.  DeBilio v. Rodgers
 The fact that respondent had moved to this state, that she would not allow the children to visit another state, that the children’s father was confined to a wheelchair, that grandmother was able to travel to this state to visit her grandchildren with their father only at tremendous inconvenience due to her age and her husband’s inability to accompany her, all established the inadequacy of visitation under a previous judgment.  Lyons v. Lyons
 A petition seeking visitation with a child who has been moved from one county to another is not an appropriate issue to be raised or decided on a motion to dismiss, and may properly be resolved by a hearing to determine what is in the child’s best interest.  Padin v. Padin
 Evidence of failure to visit is insufficient, of itself, to support a finding of unfitness.  Chick v. Massey
 For a case discussing custody and visitation, see Lawyer v. Lawyer
 When visitation rights are substantially decreased, it is such a change of condition that it does not, ipso facto, establish a base for a change in custody.  Johnson v. Johnson
 A grant of visitation rights of necessity involves a grant of “control” over a minor child.  DePhillips v. DePhillips
 A decree denying the right of visitation was temporary in character, and to alleviate a condition which had contrary to the best interests of the children, and was designed to impress upon both of the parents that any visitation rights must be consistent with the best interests of the children at all times; therefore, the decree was not contrary to the best interests of the children.  Malone v. Malone
 Where the parties continually and repeatedly sought relief from the courts in connection with the custody of the minor children, brought the children into court on numerous occasions and conducted themselves in a manner which was contrary to the best interests of the minor children, it was in the best interests of all the minor children that each of the parents did not have visitation periods with the child or children awarded to the other until the periods with the child or children awarded to the other until the further order of the court.  Malone v. Malone
 In the absence of a constitutionally valid grandparent visitation statute, a non-custodial parent’s request that visitation be modified to permit grandparent visitation in lieu of the parent’s visitation while the parent was on active military duty was governed by Illinois common law, which allowed such modifications under special circumstances, including military duty; therefore, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the parent’s modification petition and should have conducted a best interests proceeding.  In re Marriage of Sullivan

 The parties’ stipulation to the court’s consideration of a transcript of a prior hearing, insofar as it relates to a determination of child custody, is inconsistent with the declared policy of our state and, as such, was inoperative.  In re Akins
 Where the record was adequate for purpose of this section, the judgment was not disturbed merely because written findings of facts were not made in statutory form.  Melear v. Melear

 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