The parties lived in Illinois. They moved to Canada. The parties and their children traveled from Ontario to Lake Forest, Illinois. They had purchased tickets for all of them to return to Canada.
However, while in Lake County, Wife told Husband that she and the two children would not return to Canada. She filed for divorce in Illinois.
Husband returned to Canada. He petitioned in the Northern District of Illinois to return the children to Canada. The court entered a consent order. The parties agreed to return to Canada ‘on a temporary basis’ from January 2017 until a date in 2018. They also agreed that the United States was the habitual residence of the children. Mother dismissed her divorce petition in Lake County, Illinois.
The wife and children again took a vacation to Illinois in 2017. Wife again filed for divorce in Illinois. Husband filed a motion to strike her petition. He argued that Illinois was not the residence of the children or the wife. The facts showed that they had lived in Canada for most of the time in the last few years.
He also argued that the Illinois court did not have jurisdiction over him. He was a Canadian citizen and he had lived most of the time in Canada. The courts found that it had personal jurisdiction over Husband. He had engaged in conduct that resulted in the conception of a child in Illinois. And he had entered into a contract (the consent order) in Illinois.
Husband filed for divorce in Canada. The court denied husband’s motion to dismiss wife’s second petition for dissolution. Husband appealed.
The appellate court said the trial court had properly determined that Illinois is home state of the children. The intent of the parties, especially as stated in the consent order show that the parties intended that their Canadian residency would be only temporary.
In re Marriage of Milne, 2018 IL App (2d) 18009, Lake Co., August 2, 2018.
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!