Mother filed a Motion to relocate parties’ minor daughter, age 7, to North Carolina. Mother had begun working at a university In North Carolina. The Trial Court granted the motion and Father appealed. He argued that the evidence was against the move.
The Appellate Court agreed with the Trial Court. It said that the Trial Court had properly considered the statutory and other relevant factors bearing on the minor child’s best interests.
The court is not prohibited from considering an enhancement to the custodial parent’s quality of life. However, the court must be satisfied that the move has a bearing on the child’s best interest.
Mother’s salary in the new job was comparable to her previous job at UIC. This did not necessarily weigh against mother. It is only one factor. There were other benefits from the move. These included day care and housing. Shorter work hours and a shorter commute in mother’s new job.
The courts recognized that the ‘bottom line’ was whether father’s relationship with his daughter could survive and prosper. They would not see each other as frequently. It was a close call. There was no right answer. But, the child’s best interest was with the move with mother.
Court did not make a mistake in ordering that the child be enrolled at a private school in North Carolina. However, father is under no financial obligation for tuition to a private school he does not agree to. Also, father did not give any good reason for objecting to this enrollment.
In re Marriage of Kavchak, 2018 IL App (2d)170853.
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
