In re Marriage of Eckburg

2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: December 18, 2024
• Docket: 2-24-0471
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U No. 2-24-0471 Order filed December 18, 2024

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

In re MARRIAGE OF ALISHA ECKBURG, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Kane County. Petitioner-Appellant, ) ) and ) No. 20-D-764 ) JOSHUA ECKBURG, ) Honorable ) Bradley P. David, Respondent-Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Schostok and Birkett concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The trial court’s denial of petitioner’s petition for permanent relocation with her minor children was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Affirmed.

¶2 In this post-decree matter, petitioner, Alisha Eckburg, appeals from the trial court’s denial

of her petition to permanently relocate to Idaho with her four children from her marriage to

respondent, Joshua Eckburg. Alisha argues that: (1) the court failed to consider the impact of the

temporary relocation on the children and herself; (2) the guardian ad litem (GAL) and the court

failed to ascertain the children’s wishes as to relocation; (3) the court failed to consider Joshua’s

unhealthy behavior toward Alisha and his lack of involvement with the children and litigation; and 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

(4) the court erred in determining that Alisha’s reasons for moving to Idaho weighed against

relocation by failing to recognize her motive to leave an abusive situation, to maintain the

children’s current emotional state in Idaho, and her significant improvement in her financial

situation. We affirm.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 The parties were married on June 11, 2005, and the marriage was registered in

Pennsylvania. Alisha worked part-time providing music lessons, but was primarily a stay-at-home

mother during the marriage. Joshua is an attorney. The parties had four children together: Gavin

(born August 6, 2012), Clara (born August 24, 2014), Caitlyn (born September 19, 2016), and

Grace (born August 11, 2018). On July 14, 2020, Alisha petitioned to dissolve the parties’

marriage.

¶5 On November 22, 2021, the parties entered into an agreed allocation judgment that

allocated their parenting time and responsibilities. It provided that both parties had parenting

responsibilities for their children but, if they could not come to an agreement, Alisha’s decision

controlled. The agreement also addressed Joshua’s parenting time, providing, until such time as

he had suitable living arrangements for overnight parenting time (i.e., each child had their own

bed and there were at least two bedrooms for them to share at his residence): Tuesday from 5 p.m.

to 8 p.m. and Wednesday from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. (during Awana, a church youth group, season) or

Thursday from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.; and Saturday from 9 a.m. to Sunday 3 p.m. (week one) and Friday

after school or 5 p.m. if no school through Sunday at 3 p.m. Joshua would have only two children

at a time for overnight parenting time. His overnight parenting time would consist of alternating

weekends from Friday after school or 5 p.m. if no school until Sunday at 7 p.m.

-2- 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶6 The parties entered into a marital settlement agreement, which was filed on March 15,

2022, and, on the same date, the trial court entered a judgment for dissolution of marriage.

¶7 A. Alisha’s Petition to Restrict and Relocation Petition

¶8 On October 2, 2023, Alisha filed a verified two-count petition for temporary removal and

permanent relocation (relocation petition) and a verified petition to restrict parenting time and for

other relief (petition to restrict). In the relocation petition, she asserted that the parties resided in

Aurora, and she sought to temporarily remove and permanently relocate the minor children to

Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. As to her request for temporary relocation (count I) (750 ILCS 5/603.5(a-

5) (West 2022)), Alisha alleged that she had been informally offered a new job opportunity, with

greater pay, at a private school in Coeur d’Alene, which additionally provided her with the

opportunity to have the minors attend school full time at no cost to the parties. The school the

children would attend presented significantly improved opportunities and resources for them when

compared to the below-state-average public school in Aurora that they presently attended. Alisha

further alleged that her significant other, Kevin Hochstetler, lived in Coeur d’Alene, and they

intended to marry upon her relocation. She has no familial ties to Illinois, as her immediate family

members all reside in Pennsylvania.

¶9 Addressing Joshua, Alisha alleged that he suffered from mental illness that had put the

parties and the children at risk of harm, as shown through his verbal and physical acts. He refused

to allow the children to leave his residence unless they prayed for him and Alisha to get back

together; Joshua yelled at Alisha during drop-offs when the children were present, which has

forced her to hide at the exchanges; Joshua broke Alisha’s front door latch and door jam during an

exchange, which prompted the police to be called, and, in the children’s presence, he advised

Alisha that they were not divorced and he would not leave her residence; the minors expressed

-3- 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

their desire to no longer visit Joshua during his parenting time due to his actions; and they have

referred to spending time with him as “torture,” that he is “mad all the time,” and that they do not

feel emotionally safe with him. Alisha further alleged that Joshua resided in a two-bedroom

apartment, and the children all share one bedroom when they reside with him, in violation of the

parties’ allocation judgment. She asserted that, due to the better educational opportunities, her job

opportunity, and her desire for stability and a supportive environment for the children, immediate

temporary relocation to Coeur d’Alene was in the children’s best interests until the court

determined the issue of permanent relocation.

¶ 10 As to the permanent relocation count (count II), Alisha alleged that relocation to Idaho was

in the children’s best interests. 750 ILCS 5/609.2(b) (West 2022). She pointed to her job

opportunity at Classical Christian Academy, where she will be allowed to teach in a field in which

she has an advanced degree. This opportunity is not easily attainable where she presently resides.

Her significant other resides in Coeur d’Alene and will be able to assist Alisha, she asserted, with

the children during her residential transition. The children will be able to attend the same private

school where Alisha was offered a position and at no additional cost to the parties. The academic,

personal, and religious opportunities at the school are not available at the public schools in Aurora.

Alisha also alleged that she has no familial ties to Illinois, and Joshua’s immediate family in Aurora

does not spend meaningful time with the children. The minors reside primarily with her, fear

Joshua, and have become apprehensive about visiting him due to his substandard living conditions,

erratic and often-times verbally abusive behavior, and lack of empathy and connection to the

children’s feelings. They refer to Joshua as “scary daddy,” have referred to staying with him as

“torture,” and stated that Joshua is “mad all the time.” Alisha further alleged that Joshua stated to

-4- 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

the children, “just kill me now,” “Jesus take me,” “end my miserable life,” and “[G]od just take

me to heaven,” causing them to be scared, anxious, and frightened while in his care.

¶ 11 Further, Alisha alleged that during their breaks from school, they can remain in steady

contact with Joshua. The children, ages 11, 9, 7, and 5, have, individually and collectively,

expressed a desire to reside with Alisha in Idaho and to be with her significant other, with whom

they have all had positive experiences (and with his children).

¶ 12 In her petition to restrict, Alisha alleged that, since the allocation judgment, Joshua’s

behavior toward her and the children had become threatening, harassing, abusive, and increasingly

alarming. Specifically, Joshua texted her about one dozen times per day for purposes unrelated to

the children and on inappropriate and harassing topics; the parties were unable to effectively

communicate concerning the children, and Joshua had voluntarily had little-to-no involvement in

decision-making responsibilities for the children; Joshua was emotional toward the children,

crying, stating he missed being a family, praying Alisha would change her mind, and told Alisha

they were still married; he would not allow the children to leave his residence after his parenting

time unless they prayed for their parents to get back together; he yelled at Alisha during exchanges

and in the minors’ presence; he broke Alisha’s front door, refused to leave her house, and told her

they were still married (in front of the children), and Alisha called the police; she believed that

Joshua suffered from mental illness that put her and the children at risk of harm; Alisha’s friends

and neighbors had observed Joshua’s erratic and threatening behavior at exchanges and had

expressed concern for Alisha and the children’s safety; and the oldest three children had expressed

to Alisha that they were scared of Joshua, did not want to spend time with him, that being in his

residence was “torture,” and one of the children feared going to Joshua’s house for parenting time

due to the yelling so she hid in Alisha’s bathtub. Alisha also alleged that Joshua had suicidal

-5- 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

ideation and stated to the children, “just kill me now,” “Jesus take me,” “end my miserable life,”

and “[G]od just take me to heaven,” causing the children to be scared, anxious, and frightened

while in his care.

¶ 13 Alisha argued that the foregoing behaviors had occurred since entry of the allocation

judgment and that it was in the children’s best interests that Joshua’s parenting time be suspended

and/or supervised and that Alisha be allocated sole decision-making responsibilities for the

children. She also requested that: the parties be required to communicate solely through AppClose

or Talking Parents, Joshua be ordered to attend anger management class, the parties have no

contact during parenting time exchanges, and Joshua be ordered to remain in his vehicle during

the exchanges.

¶ 14 On October 17, 2023, the trial court ordered the parties to attend mediation with attorney

Lynn Mirabella and set the case for hearing on December 11, 2023. Joshua did not appear in court

on October 17, 2023, nor did an attorney appear on his behalf. On November 1, 2023, Mirabella

filed a report, stating that mediation did not take place.

¶ 15 B. Trial Court’s Ruling – Temporary Relocation and Parenting Time

¶ 16 On December 12, 2023, the trial court granted Alisha’s petition to temporarily relocate

(count I) and granted her petition to restrict. It modified the allocation judgment, permitting Alisha

to relocate with the children to Coeur d’Alene, granting her sole decision-making authority for the

children, and ordering that Joshua have no parenting time.

¶ 17 Joshua moved to vacate or to reconsider, arguing that the court file did not contain proof

of service reflecting that he was given notice of the December 11, 2023, hearing date and alleged

that he would testify that he was not aware of that hearing date or that his parental rights were

immediately imperiled. He argued that the December 12 order effectively terminated his parental

-6- 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

rights, where it wholly restricted his parenting time, terminated his decision-making

responsibilities, and allowed Alisha to relocate the children almost 2,000 miles away. He sought

vacatur of the order and a hearing on the merits. In his motion to reconsider, Joshua argued that

the December 12, order should be reconsidered because Alisha did not provide notice to him (or

the court) of her intended relocation (id. § 609.2(c)).

¶ 18 Alisha responded that Joshua is an attorney, and he represented himself throughout the

proceedings prior to entry of the dissolution judgment. He also, she asserted, received notice of

the filing of her two petitions on October 2, 2023, as well as subsequent orders. According to

Alisha, Joshua was aware of the pending post-decree litigation, and she believed that, in an

intentional effort to harass her, he chose not to participate.

¶ 19 On March 12, 2024, the court appointed Thomas St. Jules as GAL and set the case for trial

in August 2024. On May 7, 2024, the court denied Joshua’s motion to vacate or reconsider with

respect to Alisha’s temporary relocation, but, with respect to her decision making responsibility,

granted it and, thus, vacated that aspect of its December 12, 2023, order. The court also vacated

its determination Joshua would have no parenting time, and it reserved the issue. It also ordered

the parties to cooperate to schedule regular, recurring phone calls between Joshua and the children,

to occur at least three days per week.

¶ 20 On May 14, 2024, Joshua moved for temporary parenting time, asserting he had not had

parenting time for six months and had infrequent electronic access to the children. He sought

liberal parenting time prior to the upcoming trial dates. On May 29, 2024, the trial court granted

Joshua temporary parenting time in Illinois from June 15 to June 23 and for two weeks in July.

¶ 21 On July 1, 2024, Alisha petitioned for an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 215(a) examination

of Joshua, and, on August 1, 2024, the court denied the petition. On August 2, 2024, Alisha moved

-7- 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

for in camera interviews of the children, and, on August 5, 2024, the trial court granted the motion

with respect to Gavin and Clara.

¶ 22 C. Trial on Permanent Relocation and Petition to Restrict

¶ 23 Trial on Alisha’s relocation petition and petition to restrict was held on August 5, 7, and 8,

2024.

¶ 24 1. Thomas St. Jules - GAL

¶ 25 St. Jules initially testified in narrative form, noting that he was appointed as GAL after the

children had moved to Idaho. When making a list of witnesses he wishes to speak to, he asks the

parties for names. He spoke to everyone on the parties’ witness list, with the exception of one of

Alisha’s witnesses, who never returned his calls. St. Jules spoke to about 14 witnesses and, on

multiple occasions, to the children in person and on Zoom.

¶ 26 The family lived in Aurora from 2018 to December 18, 2023. The parents related that they

did not precisely follow the allocation judgment. Alisha told the GAL that Joshua had the children

for weekly overnights on Tuesdays and either Fridays or Saturdays. He also had parenting time

with Clara one night per week to take her to gymnastics and had additional time with Gavin

depending on his baseball schedule. Joshua also had weekly parenting time with at least three of

the children, including on Wednesdays at a church youth program. Thus, he saw the children about

four or five days per week. Joshua related to St. Jules that he saw the children almost daily and

had them for overnights on Tuesdays.

¶ 27 St. Jules conducted a home visit of Joshua’s one-bedroom apartment in Aurora. It

contained two bunk-bed sets where the children slept. The children gave St. Jules a Zoom tour of

their home in Coeur d’Alene, which is a four-bedroom single-family residence. Gavin and Clara

-8- 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

share a bedroom, and Caitlyn and Grace share another bedroom. St. Jules spoke more to Gavin

and Clara, the two older children.

¶ 28 Gavin, according to St. Jules, had just finished fifth grade and is interested in baseball and

fishing, which were activities he had spent a lot of time doing with Joshua. He is an active child

with lots of friends in Aurora and Coeur d’Alene. Gavin told St. Jules that Idaho was less of a

struggle than he thought it would be, he had made good friends at school, still spoke to his Aurora

friends via video games, and he missed those friends and his father. During a June 21, 2024, visit

to see Joshua, the girls ran to their father upon seeing him at the airport, and Gavin hugged his

father. This visit was one week long, and Gavin expressed that it was fun but it was difficult to

get alone time with his father. During this visit, per Gavin, his father was praying for miracles

revolving around him and Alisha getting back together. To St. Jules, it seemed that this was not

something that he enjoyed. Gavin told St. Jules that he was looking forward to his next visit with

Joshua in the summer, but he also enjoyed Idaho, his time with Kevin, and Kevin’s children. The

children returned to Illinois for a two-week trip in July 2024. Gavin related things that were not

fun about the trip, including missing his mother, missing his Idaho friends, and wishing he had

brought his fishing pole so that he and Joshua could go fishing. He also related that Joshua’s

praying about Alisha had subsided, which he was happy about. Gavin still wanted alone time with

Joshua, but he gave details about fun things that he, his sisters, and Joshua did during the visit.

¶ 29 Next, addressing Clara, St. Jules stated that she is nine years old and her major activity was

gymnastics. She described being active with friends in both Aurora and Idaho. She often spoke

of a close friend in Aurora named Greta. During St. Jules’ first visit with Clara, Clara stated that

the move to Idaho was both exciting and scary, that she missed her dad nights, and she missed her

Aurora friends. During a second meeting, Clara described seeing Joshua at the airport and running

-9- 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

to him and hugging him. She described going to the grocery store with Joshua without her sisters

and that it was very nice. “She had some apprehension about coming back for a second visit and

said that she just kind of wanted to come back.” On July 3, 2024, St. Jules followed up with the

children during a virtual tour of their house and learned that Clara wanted to speak to him the next

day on Zoom. When they spoke, Clara told St. Jules that she felt uncomfortable with dad praying

for mom to change her mind and that dad had a screenshot on his phone of him and mom and that

made her feel a little uncomfortable. When asked, she said that she never spoke to her father

about it. She characterized her first trip back to visit Joshua as 80 to 90 percent good. St. Jules

next saw Clara during the children’s two-week trip. Clara described multiple fun activities they

enjoyed with Joshua, siblings, cousins, and friends and a trip to Wisconsin. She got sick with an

ear infection during the visit and had to go to the emergency room. Clara liked Idaho because

there are no tornadoes there; there was a tornado in Aurora during their visit. Joshua was not

always with them. Sometimes he coached the baseball team or was on his phone doing work. This

was something she did not like about her trip. She also missed Alisha a lot, the mountains, her

Idaho friends, her dog, and her chicken.

¶ 30 Caitlyn, age seven, related that she is involved in her church group. She has made new

friends in Idaho. It is different not having daddy nights, and it does not feel that there are enough

things for her to do. She also stated that she needs her dad, misses him a lot, wishes he were here,

and wishes it were more like Illinois. During a second conversation, while on the one-week visit

to Illinois, she saw dad on the escalator at the airport and stated to her sister “Is this a dream?

Squeeze me, Grace. It was so fun.” She was excited for the next visit. During the two-week visit,

she was excited to see Joshua and described activities they did with Joshua, friends, and family

that were fun. She also stated that she really missed mom and missed her Idaho friends.

- 10 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 31 Grace, age five, stated that her favorite part about Idaho was getting to spend time with

Caitlyn. She is very energetic and silly, according to St. Jules. Her favorite thing about her mother

is snuggling with her, and her favorite thing about her father is playing with him at parks. At the

end of her two-week visit, Grace told St. Jules that it had been good and fun but she missed her

Idaho friends.

¶ 32 St. Jules observed Joshua interacting with the children during a visit to Blackberry Farm.

They appeared to be a loving and connected family and were having a great time together.

¶ 33 St. Jules spoke to various people that Alisha and Joshua had asked him to speak with. The

witnesses expressed concerns about Josuah’s anger and his inability to move past his divorce.

Oftentimes, they expressed this information from what they had been provided by Alisha.

¶ 34 Addressing the statutory factors, St. Jules opined that he did not believe Alisha’s reasons

for relocation—her concerns for Joshua’s mental health and emotional abuse—and related that her

father stated that Alisha’s primary reason for moving was to be with her significant other and,

secondly, she was fearful of staying close to Joshua. Her reasons, St. Jules believed, did not

outweigh them staying in Illinois. Joshua had a valid concern about seeing the children if they

lived in Idaho. The children adore Alisha, and Joshua was a highly involved parent; they both

have a quality relationship with the children. St. Jules “did not see” that the children spending

time with their father was torture to them. Addressing the schools in Aurora and Idaho, St. Jules

opined that they were not significantly different in the middle-school and high-school levels. As

to family, Alisha has no family in Idaho or Illinois, and Joshua has family in Illinois. Kevin lives

about a three-minute walk from Alisha’s house, and they eat together and hang out after school as

a group. Kevin and Alisha knew each other from college, started talking on the phone in

September 2022, and had their first in-person visit in January 2023. He met Alisha’s children in

- 11 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

the spring of 2023, and he brought his children to meet them during spring break of 2023. Gavin

and Alisha visited Kevin in Idaho in the summer of 2023.

¶ 35 St. Jules opined that the children were thriving in Illinois and appear to be thriving in Idaho.

They had friends in Aurora and have friends in Idaho. Clara’s Aurora elementary school reported

that she began having anxiety attacks at the time the divorce proceedings started. It took 20 to 30

minutes for school personnel to calm her down before she went to class. Alisha reported that the

attacks have not occurred in Coeur d’Alene. Alisha also told St. Jules that Clara had night terrors

in Illinois. She also reported that Gavin had bedwetting issues in Aurora, but did not have them

in Idaho. Due to the distance, St. Jules opined, it would not be possible to fashion a parenting

schedule that resembles what was exercised in Illinois.

¶ 36 Next, St. Jules addressed the children’s wishes, stating that he did not specifically ask them

if they would prefer to live in Idaho or Illinois. He explained that he felt that, given their ages, it

was not appropriate to ask. The children associate Idaho with their mom and Illinois with their

dad. The children reported that they like Idaho, have made friends there, and they like spending

time with Kevin and his children. They appear to be doing well in Idaho. They also reported to

St. Jules that they also missed their father and Aurora. St. Jules related that, if the court were to

ask the children, they would respond that they prefer to be in Idaho because they would feel they

are with their mom and they are accustomed to being with their mom most of the time. There were

no possible arrangements for in-person parenting time, St. Jules opined, given the great distance

between Idaho and Illinois; Facetime is not a substitute. He further opined that it is impossible to

replicate the parent-child relationship that the children were experiencing with Joshua in Illinois

with any amount of extended stays if they lived in Idaho.

- 12 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 37 St. Jules also addressed Joshua’s mental health, opining that he is struggling with the

divorce and potentially with depression and is not adequately addressing his issues. This can

negatively impact the children, but St. Jules did not believe they weighed in favor of allowing

permanent relocation to Idaho. Finally, St. Jules noted that he spoke with a counselor the couple

had seen at one point. Alisha stated that he had expressed to her that she needed to speak with

Aurora police because Joshua was potentially dangerous. St. Jules contacted the counselor, who

denied stating what Alisha represented he said. He stated that he never believed that Joshua was

suicidal or homicidal, but did believe that he was depressive at times and that the counselor might

have spoken to Alisha in generalities that she should take precautions if she felt Joshua was a

danger. The counselor stated that he never had any concerns that rose to a level that he would seek

to involuntarily commit Joshua or make any calls relating to concerns about him and the children.

¶ 38 Ultimately, St. Jules opined, both parents are loving parents and the children love both

parents. He believed that a move to Idaho would substantially impact the children’s ability to have

a quality relationship with Joshua.

¶ 39 2. In Camera Interviews

¶ 40 In her motion for in camera interviews of the children, Alisha noted that the GAL had not

asked the children what their specific wishes were concerning their residence. Joshua objected,

arguing that it was procedurally unfair based on the last-minute nature of the request, that there

was a lack of safeguards of reliability because the children had seen Joshua infrequently over the

prior eight months, and the interviews could be injurious to the children’s best interests by forcing

them to choose between their parents. The trial court, on August 5, 2024, granted Alisha’s motion,

ordering that only Gavin and Clara would be interviewed, ordering that the GAL be present, and

asking for the parties to submit agreed-upon questions prior to the interviews. The court also

- 13 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

ordered that the questions relate to Illinois and Idaho, “not to mom’s house and dad’s house,” i.e.,

a preference for a particular parent. The parties waived being present for the interviews.

¶ 41 The in camera interviews occurred on August 6, 2024. Gavin stated that he was celebrating

his twelfth birthday. He had been living in Idaho for about six or seven months, and his favorite

parts about being in Idaho were the activities, including mountains, hiking, boating, tubing, and

fishing. When asked what he did not like about Idaho, he replied that he did not like not knowing

a lot of people there because he was new. Gavin did not know everyone in his neighborhood.

What he liked best about Idaho was fishing. Turning to Aurora, he liked that he lived in a nice

neighborhood, knew everyone, and had a lot of very good friends with whom he had sleepovers

and road bikes. He did not like how there was not a lot of open space there. The best thing about

living in Aurora was his friends and having sleepovers. Next, Clara stated that she was nine years

old. She likes the people in Idaho, specifically, her friend Carter and some of Gavin’s friends.

They are very nice. She also likes that there are no tornadoes. There is not anything that she does

not like about Idaho. Her favorite thing is the people, who are very nice. She goes tubing and

swimming in lakes in Idaho, which she did not do in Illinois. Turning to Aurora, Clara liked

playing with her neighbor there and her best friend lived a few blocks away. The best part of living

in Aurora was hanging out with her friends and having sleepovers with them. She has had a few

sleepovers in Idaho. When asked what she did not like in Aurora, Clara replied that, sometimes,

people at school were mean. She told her teachers, and they helped her work through it.

¶ 42 3. Ashley Hostetter

¶ 43 During Alisha’s case-in-chief, Ashley Hostetter, Alisha’s sister, testified as follows. She

is a human resources executive and has seen Alisha and the children about five times in the last

two years. Alisha is a caring mother, is attentive to the children, home-makes almost all meals,

- 14 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

plays with the children, and cares about their emotional health. Ashley visited Idaho for five days

during the week of June 10, 2024. She observed that the children were very happy, showed her

their chickens, and took her around their neighborhood to where their friends live. They seemed

very well adjusted and pleasant at home. She observed nothing that concerned her.

¶ 44 Ashley had also observed the children when they lived in Illinois (between January 2023

to January 2024). In March 2023, Ashley observed Alisha with the children; Joshua was no longer

in the home. The children were well taken care of, but appeared to be having a difficult time

emotionally. When it was time for Joshua to come and get the children, Gavin and Clara became

emotionally distraught. When Gavin returned from the visit, he was very emotional. Clara was

also emotional. They were crying, angry, and appeared to be overwhelmed. Gavin also had

bedwetting issues that appeared to be connected to anxiety that was caused by his father.

¶ 45 Ashley further testified that Alisha always encouraged the children to see their father.

Addressing Alisha’s demeanor, Ashley stated that, in Illinois, Alisha seemed overwhelmed

emotionally, tried to help the children with their emotional distress, and was increasingly nervous

about their and her own safety. Once, Ashley was in the home when Alisha received a text message

from a neighbor about Joshua that caused her some concern. In Idaho, Alisha seemed much more

relaxed and happier, and she seemed to feel safer there.

¶ 46 Ashley observed Joshua’s interactions with the children in September 2021. He yelled a

lot at them, was impatient, did not engage in a lot of parental caretaking (food or baths), and he

was absent a lot (for bike rides or to go to church). He also gaslit the children when they cried,

and he yelled at them multiple times per day. During Christmas 2023, Alisha called Ashley, stating

that she feared Joshua and did not know what to do. Ashley advised her to install security cameras

and reach out to the couple’s counselor. Alisha installed a security system.

- 15 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 47 Ashley is concerned about the children’s health because Joshua lives on the 16th floor of

his apartment building, and he has not installed air conditioning. The children complain about

how hot they are. She is also concerned, if the children get sick, because, on two occasions, Joshua

refused for Alisha to take Caitlyn and Clara to the emergency room. Alisha took them to the

hospital, and the doctor shared that, if she had not done so, the sickness would have been life

threatening. One child was dehydrated (she cried but no longer had tears) and the other was also

“very severe.” Joshua did not purchase health insurance for the children, and Ashley sent them

$10,000 for insurance. The children shared with Ashley that Joshua feeds them fast food and

microwaved meals. Ashley also has concerns about Joshua’s anger management issues, and she

worries about the children’s emotional health when they are with him. Caitlyn shared with her in

December 2023 that Joshua continued to pray in front of them, including suicidal prayers and that

he and Alisha would get back together.

¶ 48 4. Joshua

¶ 49 Joshua testified that, since the divorce, he has lived in a one-bedroom apartment. Under

the allocation judgment, he could have more parenting time if he obtained suitable living

arrangements, specifically, at least a two-bedroom apartment with beds for each child. In July

2024, he renewed his lease to remain in the one-bedroom apartment. He is currently looking for

alternative housing. Joshua earns a base salary of $150,000 per year and receives variable bonuses.

His net income in 2023 was $120,000. He pays about $4,500 per month in child support. Alisha

mentioned moving in the spring of 2023; she asked Joshua if he was interested in moving to Idaho.

¶ 50 The couple did not follow the parenting plan. Alisha offered that some of the children

could stay overnight on Tuesdays. Addressing his parenting time, Joshua testified that, in practice,

he kept all four children at least one weekend and on Tuesday nights.

- 16 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 51 After the divorce, Joshua showed up at Alisha’s house unannounced on one occasion. He

frequently asked Alisha to see the children during her parenting time. On some occasions when

Alisha said no, he asked again. Also, Alisha asked Joshua several times to stop texting her because

he kept asking her.

¶ 52 During the marriage, Alisha made doctor’s appointments for the children and took them to

the appointments. Joshua testified that he did not believe that the children had a pediatrician in

Illinois. His parents have never been to his apartment. Alisha has repeatedly asked Joshua not to

let the children visit his parents because Joshua has concerns about his father’s drinking. Clara

had anxiety going into elementary school. She took 20 to 30 minutes to calm down before entering

the school.

¶ 53 Since April 2010, Joshua has worked at Herbert & Eckburg LLC. He is a real estate

associate attorney. Family members work at the firm. Due to a disagreement with an employee

over her work product, for which the children were not present, he was previously barred from

coming to the office Monday through Friday between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., but was permitted to

return to his office one year ago. (The employee was permitted to work there while Joshua was

barred and continues to work there.) Joshua testified that he considered taking his life before and

has made statements regarding taking his life to others. He is aware that Alisha has been afraid of

him in the last two years. At times, he has difficulty controlling his emotions, including in front

of the children. He did not block Alisha when she tried to leave a baseball game. Alisha had

alleged as much in a September 2023 text message to Joshua. In a responsive text, Josha stated

that he did not mean to block her way. Also, he acknowledged in the message that he comes across

as emotional and defensive and becomes scared very easily.

- 17 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 54 Joshua further acknowledged that, at trial, he was wearing his wedding band from his

marriage to Alisha. He continued to wear it in front of the children. Joshua frequently prayed in

front of the children for the family to get back together. He has a picture of himself and Alisha on

the home screen of his phone that the children have seen. The court ordered him to sign up for

Family Wizard to schedule visits with the children, but he never enrolled for the service. In March

2023, on the anniversary of his divorce, Joshua had the children hand Alisha flowers he had bought

her. He also gave Alisha flowers on the anniversary of their wedding following their divorce.

Alisha asked him to stop after he sent her flowers in March 2023, but Joshua sent her flowers again

in June 2023. Joshua is not currently seeing a therapist and does not believe he needs to see one.

He does not believe that he is still married to Alisha.

¶ 55 Joshua has not visited the children in Idaho. He testified at his deposition that he did not

know if he would take steps to see the children in Idaho if they ended up staying there permanently

because he has no one there. Joshua has not asked Alisha what school the children are attending

or who their doctors are in Idaho. Nor has he contacted the school or any doctors or coaches.

Joshua further testified that the children have friends in Idaho and have a loving relationship with

Alisha. Gavin has told him that he still has bedwetting issues, but Joshua has not called his

pediatrician to confirm or spoken to Alisha about it.

¶ 56 Joshua objects to the relocation because he wants to involve himself in the children’s lives.

He testified that he is able to place the children’s needs above his own. Joshua conceded that it

would disrupt the children to be uprooted from Idaho but not as much as it disrupted them to move

to Idaho. He acknowledged that he testified at his deposition that he did not know if he could put

the children’s needs above his own if he was not with them geographically, but testified that he

did not know if he could only place the children’s needs above his own if they were in Illinois.

- 18 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 57 Joshua has practiced law since 2016. He represented himself pre-divorce and filed an

appearance and response to Alisha’s dissolution petition. Joshua confirmed he used a particular

email through the divorce and communicated with opposing counsel using that address. On

October 2, 2023, he received an email from counsel’s office with a notice and petition to relocate

and a petition to restrict. The notice of motion stated that the petitions were going to be presented

on October 17, 2023. Joshua acknowledged that he did not appear in court on that date, nor

respond to counsel’s office at any time after receiving the documents. He did not receive a copy

of the order continuing the motion for hearing on December 11, 2023.

¶ 58 Joshua also conceded that, on November 1, 2023, he received an email from the mediator,

including a mediation report. He did not attend mediation or reach out to the mediator’s office to

schedule mediation. Thus, he had notice there was litigation concerning the relocation of his

children and restrictions on parenting time but chose not to appear in court. Joshua also did not

appear in court on December 12, when the court heard the petitions and ruled. He was aware that

it was Alisha’s intent to move to Idaho as far back as June 2023.

¶ 59 Joshua is 75% busier at work in the summer months. When Alisha filed for divorce, he

did not want the divorce. He never told Alisha that they are still married. Joshua is not aware of

any pediatrician the children have in Idaho and he is unaware if they had a regular pediatrician in

Illinois. Alisha never provided Joshua details about Gavin’s baseball or the children’s school.

Alisha never asked Joshua to come visit or say that he could visit the children.

¶ 60 5. Alisha

¶ 61 Alisha testified that she rents a four-bedroom, 2,200-square-foot home in Coeur d’Alene.

She sold her Aurora home, which was a four-bedroom, 2,000-square-foot home, around December

2023/January 2024.

- 19 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 62 The parties married in 2005 and divorced in 2022. Alisha moved to Idaho in January 2024.

Prior to relocating, Joshua exercised his parenting time on Tuesday evenings and one weekend,

every other weekend. The parties communicated via text. Alisha preferred this method because

Joshua tried to have conversations with her in front of the children, and she believed this was

inappropriate. Joshua was also emotional and tried to talk about other things when parenting

exchanges were in person; she felt unsafe. When Alisha told Joshua that she would not have a

conversation with him in front of the children, he would get angry, and Alisha would try to remove

herself from the situation and shut her door. On one occasion, Joshua broke her front door jam.

The children were in the living room; they said they were scared when Alisha went inside. She

spoke to her therapist, who advised her to contact the police; she did, and they advised her to

document any such incidents.

¶ 63 In the spring of 2023, Alisha tried to leave a baseball game. Joshua yelled at her in front

of others and asked her why she did not treat him like a person and that she had to speak to him.

Alisha told Joshua that she did not want to have conversations with him in person and preferred

text messages. She tried to leave, walking toward her van and holding Grace. Joshua blocked her

three times. Alisha left. She was afraid because Joshua seemed very agitated and obsessive toward

her. He also occasionally showed up unannounced at her home in Illinois to see the children.

Several times, Joshua also went to the children’s school unannounced during Alisha’s pickup or

drop-off day. She also observed Joshua drive by her home.

¶ 64 Alisha further testified that Joshua’s texts made her uncomfortable. He texted her almost

daily about 12 texts per day. They were not always logistical texts. He also repeatedly asked for

time with the children during her parenting time; Alisha told him no. Also, usually every morning

and evening, Joshua texted Alisha stating that he was praying for her and the children. Every

- 20 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

morning, she asked him to stop. After the divorce, Joshua brought flowers to Alisha’s home, along

with the children. He did so the day after the divorce, the anniversary of the divorce, their wedding

anniversary after they were divorced, and Mother’s Day.

¶ 65 During exchanges in Illinois, Gavin was very distraught and did not want to see Joshua.

He did not like his father’s apartment. Alisha found Clara hiding in the bathtub, and she climbed

trees so that she could avoid parenting exchanges; she would have to be physically put in Joshua’s

van and the door would have to be quickly shut to prevent her escape. On one occasion, she ran

from Alisha’s house when she knew Joshua was coming, and a neighbor drove around to find her.

Clara appeared to not feel safe. Grace and Caitlyn were usually okay at the exchanges, but there

were times Grace cried, especially as the year progressed. Toward the end, she did not want to go

to Joshua’s home. When she returned to Alisha’s home, she complained that her ears hurt due to

Joshua’s yelling. After the children returned from Joshua’s parenting time, they appeared

depressed, were angry with Alisha because they stated she made them go, and Gavin would lay on

the couch and cry sometimes. They stated that they did not want to go the next time. While in

Illinois, Alisha observed that the children returned home scared and anxious. Although the

children enjoyed short amounts of time with Joshua doing activities, they appeared to be anxious

when spending time at Joshua’s apartment and complained that there was a lot of yelling, Joshua

hit counters, or slammed chairs. However, since moving to Idaho, the behaviors have changed.

¶ 66 Alisha further testified that Joshua prayed in front of the children for him and Alisha to get

back together. The children told her that they were not allowed to leave his apartment before he

would pray that Alisha would change her mind. They stated they were late to school multiple

times due to the praying. The praying that they would get back together took an emotional toll on

the children.

- 21 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 67 Addressing the children’s school performance, Alisha testified that they did well (as

evidenced by report cards from their Idaho school for the period January to June 2024 that were

admitted into evidence), were very smart and social, and excelled physically. Clara experienced

anxiety many days when going to school. The episodes occurred for 20 to 30 minutes and occurred

for several years. They have not occurred since she moved to Idaho. She is more outgoing at her

new school; she appears to be lighter, freer, and happier.

¶ 68 Alisha testified that she attended every parent-teacher conference for each of her children;

Joshua attended most of them as well. Gavin had a bedwetting alarm while in Illinois; it did not

work. He still has one in Idaho, but he no longer wets the bed.

¶ 69 Alisha contradicted Joshua’s testimony that the children did not have a pediatrician in

Illinois, stating that they did, that she made the appointments, and took the children to the doctor.

In Illinois, Joshua took Gavin more to baseball practices and both he and Alisha took Clara to

gymnastics practices. In Idaho, Gavin plays baseball and Clara does gymnastics. Caitlyn and

Grace are also going to start gymnastics. Joshua has not asked about attending any of Gavin’s

games, but has spoken to Gavin about them. Nor has Joshua inquired about doctors in Idaho or

whether the children have any. Joshua also did not inquire about who their teachers are in Idaho.

Alisha signed up for OurFamilyWizard per the court’s order, but Joshua did not.

¶ 70 The children have made friends in Idaho. Alisha and the children go fishing and hiking.

Clara loves the chickens in the backyard and enjoys Kevin’s pet bunnies.

¶ 71 Alisha believes that the children wish to remain in Idaho. She testified that her main reason

for moving to Idaho was to be somewhere safe and to be at peace. Alisha had the sense that the

children also wanted to move. (The move cost $35,000.) Another reason Alisha moved was

because of Kevin, her boyfriend. They met in 1999 in college and dated for one year. They

- 22 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

reconnected in the fall of 2022 through a mutual friend. She learned that Kevin was divorced.

Their relationship started as very good friends, as they were both single parents with four kids (his

children are ages 15, 13, 12, and 10). He visited from Idaho in January 2023, and they started

dating that month. Kevin lives in Coeur d’Alene. He shares custody 50/50 with his ex-wife, who

also resides in Idaho. Alisha stated that she and Kevin plan on getting married. “My goal in

getting out [there] was to be safe but also we know we intend on getting married.” They live about

two or three blocks apart, and the children frequently see each other.

¶ 72 When Alisha initially decided she wanted to move to Idaho, she looked for employment

there and found out about a job at Classical Christian Academy, which is the school Kevin’s

children attend. Kevin had spoken to the superintendent about the possibility of hiring Alisha as

a music teacher. She had an informal interview at the school in early fall and then another

interview in November, after which the superintendent told her to let him know when she was

moving. Alisha’s impression was that she would be receiving a job offer. However, the

superintendent stepped down due to a family health issue and a new headmaster was hired in

December; he brought in a different teacher. Alisha applied for other jobs. She has had two

interviews and been informally offered a job as a music teacher at a charter classical academy.

There is a board meeting on Monday (i.e., August 12, 2024) to vote her in; thus, Alisha is waiting

for board approval. The salary is $48,000 with benefits such as dental, vision, and health insurance

for herself and the children. If hired, the children could attend the school.

¶ 73 In Illinois, Alisha taught piano lessons and voice lessons. She also played piano every

other weekend at First Presbyterian Church. She attempted to get a job as a school music teacher

in Illinois, contacting Aurora Christian Academy in 2022 after the divorce, but they did not hire

her (based upon their philosophies). Alisha does not have certifications as a teacher, which

- 23 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

precludes employment in a public school in Illinois. In Idaho, she does not need a certification to

work at a charter school. There are no charter schools in the Aurora area.

¶ 74 Since residing in Idaho, the children have calls with Joshua and Alisha encourages the

children to speak to their father. Often, they do not want to talk on the phone. She believes that

the children can have a loving and healthy relationship with Joshua if they live in Idaho. It will be

difficult for the children to be removed from Idaho because their mental health has improved there,

they have made strong friendships, enjoy their home and the area, and enjoy Kevin and his

children. They call it home, and they have a better life in Idaho.

¶ 75 Alisha believes that Joshua needs to attend therapy. If he did so, she would be willing for

the kids to have visits and for him to visit the children. If relocation to Idaho is denied, it would

devastate her financially because she would have no job. The rental market is higher than in Coeur

d’Alene, and she could not provide the same home. Alisha would not move to the same area in

Illinois, and the children will not return to the same school.

¶ 76 On cross-examination, Alisha denied that she wants to remove Joshua from the children’s

lives. Part of the reason she first considered moving to Coeur d’Alene was because Kevin lived

there. She would not have considered the city if Kevin was not there. In March 2023, about three

months after starting to date Kevin seriously, she told Joshua that she might want to move to Idaho.

Kevin has lived in Idaho for about 15 years. Alisha has no family there. She acknowledged that,

during her deposition, she referred to Joshua as the children’s biological father. Kevin is a father

figure to them. He is a better role model for them than Joshua. Kevin is a more appropriate person

to spend time with the children than Joshua.

¶ 77 Alisha and Kevin do not have a wedding date. She was granted leave to temporarily

relocate on December 11, 2023, and went, on December 18, 2023, to Pennsylvania. Alisha did

- 24 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

not tell Joshua that she was moving to Idaho; rather, she told him that she would be unavailable

due to a family emergency. She was afraid of what he might do. The December 11 order restricted

Joshua’s parenting time; it provided that, temporarily, he would receive no parenting time.

However, Alisha let him see the children on December 12.

¶ 78 Alisha filed her relocation petition in October 2023 and stated therein that she wanted to

move because she had a job opportunity at Classical Christian Academy. She had an initial

meeting with the headmaster prior to November and received the offer in November 2023 after a

formal meeting with the headmaster (there was no discussion about compensation or a start date).

Between the date of the divorce and the filing of her relocation petition, Alisha did not apply for a

similar job in Illinois. Her current gross monthly income from working as a piano instructor is

$100 per month. In 2023, her annual income was $6,300.

¶ 79 As of the date of the hearing, Alisha had a job prospect at Kootenai Classical Academy.

At her deposition, on June 17, she testified that she was not actively applying for jobs in Coeur

d’Alene. She had also testified that she was working minimally because she had the children 100%

of the time. Based on her new job prospect, her schedule will be the same as the children’s.

¶ 80 Alisha has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in vocal performance. She also took a

continuing education course in elementary experience. Between about 2005 and 2008, Alisha

worked as a kindergarten-to-fifth grade general music teacher at Harvest Christian Academy in

Elgin and a fourth and fifth grade band director. Also, while in Illinois, Alisha worked on

bathroom renovations, but her income was not reflected on tax returns. The monthly mortgage on

the Aurora residence was $1,800. She listed the residence for sale on January 13 after she learned

that Joshua was objecting to her move to Idaho. Her monthly lease payment in Idaho is $2,600.

Part of the reason Alisha rented a house in Idaho rather than buying one is because she could not

- 25 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

afford a home similar to the one she had in Aurora. One of the reasons she likes Idaho is because

of the superior schools. Prior to the move to Idaho, the children were doing well in school. Clara

had some issues but saw the school social worker and a therapist. Alisha did not discuss with

Joshua the decision to put the children in their school in Idaho or the decision whether to enroll

them in private versus public school there. Alisha initially compared schools using the

GreatSchools.com rating. At her deposition, she was not aware what metrics the site uses. Nor

was Alisha aware of the college placement rate of West Aurora High School versus Coeur d’Alene

public schools, the graduation rate of the districts, or the average class sizes. She is aware that

Coeur d’Alene schools are less racially and ethnically diverse than Aurora public schools. Alisha

is also aware there are much better schools in communities around Aurora than the elementary

school her children attended in Aurora. She did not consider moving her children to a better district

in the Aurora area because she could not afford it.

¶ 81 In her petition, Alisha alleged that the children called Joshua scary daddy, but that was four

years ago; they do not currently call him that. Joshua is current with child support and expense

reimbursements. At her deposition, Alisha was asked to identify the children’s pediatrician and

replied that they were usually taken to urgent care. At trial, she testified that the children had a

pediatrician in Illinois, specifically, VNA Healthcare. Alisha did not recall this at the time of her

deposition. They went to urgent care for sickness.

¶ 82 Alisha had not informed Joshua of the children’s parent-teacher conferences in Idaho. Nor

did she inform him that Gavin had a fifth-grade graduation ceremony; rather, Gavin informed

Joshua. Kevin attended the graduation. Alisha did not inform Joshua of Gavin’s baseball games;

Kevin attended the games. When Alisha moved to Idaho, she blocked Joshua’s phone number.

He could contact Alisha via email. A court order was entered that there were to be regular phone

- 26 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

calls with the children. Prior to the court order, Alisha did not encourage the children to call Joshua

unless they asked to do so.

¶ 83 Alisha and Joshua did not precisely follow the parenting plan. Joshua exercised Tuesday

overnights and an overnight on the weekend. He was frequently with the children throughout

2023. He often took the children to activities that occurred during Alisha’s parenting time. He

took them to Awana on Wednesday nights, to church on Sunday, he took Clara to gymnastics on

Monday and took Gavin to baseball practices and some games. At her deposition, Alisha testified

that Joshua’s positive qualities were that he took the children to activities. Her understanding is

that Joshua’s reasons for objecting to the relocation are that he wants to control Alisha and the

children. “I think his narcissistic personality wants us to all fit in the box that we’re supposed to

stay in.” Alisha believes that Joshua wants the children back for his own interests, not the

children’s. As circumstances currently exist, she believes that Joshua should have no parenting

time if she is allowed to relocate.

¶ 84 Kevin is a better role model for the children than Joshua because he is kind, empathetic to

their emotional needs, compassionate, and patient. He does not yell and puts other’s needs before

his own. If Joshua’s mental health was better, she would want him to be around the children. At

her deposition, she stated that she would love for the kids to be around their biological father.

¶ 85 Alisha had contacted Aurora Christian during her job search but did not formally apply for

a job. She did not discuss with Joshua a school choice in Idaho because the December 12, 2023,

court order gave her sole decision-making authority.

¶ 86 6. Joshua

¶ 87 Joshua testified during his case in chief that he objects to the relocation because the kids

were well involved with their community in Aurora, they loved the neighborhood, did well in

- 27 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

school, had many friends, and were involved in activities. He believes it is important for the

children to be close to both parents. He wants to have as much in-person and one-on-one time

with them as possible. Addressing Gavin, Joshua testified that, in 2023, he saw Gavin multiple

times per week. Since the move to Idaho, Joshua has spoken to Gavin 18 times over 6½ months.

He has enjoyed speaking to him about baseball, going to baseball games with him, fishing at

Blackberry Farm, and doing activities with Gavin’s friends. Clara loves animals and has a caring

heart. In 2023, Joshua saw Clara multiple times per week. Since the move, he has spoken to her

about 13 times over the first 6½ months. Caitlyn and Joshua went to parks and her friends’ homes,

fished, and rode the train and horses at Blackberry Farm. Grace also loves parks, and Joshua took

her to parks in their Aurora neighborhood. They also went to the library.

¶ 88 Joshua further testified that he did not get a two-bedroom or bigger place to live, because

it was not financially feasible for him, given the rental and housing markets. Also, he did not need

to obtain a larger home because he was seeing the children regularly where he was living. In 2023,

in a typical month, Joshua saw the children 28 out of 30 days. He took Gavin to every baseball

practice and took Clara to gymnastics once per week. At baseball practices, Joshua was initially

an observer and then, in the summer of 2023, he became more involved and helped at practices.

Gavin’s bedwetting started before the divorce. It happened at both Joshua’s and Alisha’s homes.

¶ 89 Joshua took the children to Awana on Wednesday evenings. Joshua testified that his faith

is a big part of his life, and he took the children to church every week that he had them. He has

family in Illinois, including his parents, brother, and his brother’s family. The children saw their

cousins, who were of similar ages, about twice per month. The children also saw Joshua’s mother,

who is a retired preschool teacher. They loved playing with toys there and in her back yard.

Joshua’s father took the older children to baseball games and other outdoor experiences.

- 28 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 90 Addressing the children’s Aurora elementary school, Joshua testified that Alisha never

raised any complaints about the school prior to her request to relocate. All the children did well

there. None of the children have any diagnosed learning, behavioral, or mental disability. Joshua

liked the school, specifically, the children’s teachers, the community, and how integrated the

children were to the school. It is a great school and a great neighborhood.

¶ 91 Addressing Alisha’s testimony that the children’s Idaho school is less diverse than their

Aurora school, Joshua stated that relative diversity is an important factor in choosing a school. It

is important to understand different viewpoints, ways of life, backgrounds, religions, and

experiences.

¶ 92 Between the date that Alisha moved to Idaho and the date of the order giving him phone

calls, Joshua spoke to the children 20 times. He believes that electronic communication is not a

reasonable substitute for in-person contact with his children. He cannot hold their attention for

long. The children now have their own phone that Alisha purchased for them; they had lost a prior

phone. Joshua does not believe that a reasonable schedule could be fashioned while still allowing

for the relocation. Even if he were granted the entire summer but minimal time during the school

year, he would not easily be able to exercise one-on-one time with the children. Joshua testified

that, if Alisha were granted permanent relocation to Idaho, he is unsure if he will visit the children

there. He denied that he loses his temper when all four of the children are together and, thus,

prefers one-on-one time with them. He is unaware if Alisha obtained an outside counselor to come

to the Aurora school for Clara.

¶ 93 7. Alisha

¶ 94 In rebuttal, Alisha testified that, Gavin’s bedwetting started when he was six years old.

Alisha arranged for an outside counselor to attend the Aurora school to work with Clara every

- 29 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

other Friday in first grade. Between the date of divorce and moving to Idaho, the children did not

often spend time with Joshua’s parents and brother. They saw their uncle every other month.

¶ 95 8. Michael Herbert

¶ 96 Michael Herbert, an owner and attorney at Herbert & Eckberg, LLC, in Aurora testified

that he has hiring and firing power over Joshua at the firm. In late 2021 to late 2022 or early 2023,

Joshua could not come into the office from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. because he and another employee,

Cheryl, did not get along well. Herbert wanted both to continue working for the firm. According

to Herbert, Cheryl stated that Joshua was not friendly and that he was nonresponsive to her. When

Herbert discussed the issue with Joshua, Joshua reacted negatively, yelling at Herbert. Herbert

responded by telling Joshua that he was fired, but reconsidered after 10 minutes and told Joshua

that he was not fired.

¶ 97 Herbert further testified that Joshua is a great worker and he wanted him at the firm. Joshua

was excluded from the office, but Cheryl was not because they have different roles. Cheryl

answers phones and communicates with customers. Joshua does not need to be in the office and

can work remotely.

¶ 98 D. Alisha’s Motion to Re-open Proofs

¶ 99 On August 13, 2024, Alisha filed an emergency motion to re-open proofs, asserting that,

that day, she received, via email, a formal job offer from Kootenai Classical. She requested that

the court re-open her case to allow her to admit evidence regarding the formal offer, arguing the

evidence should be considered by the court in determining whether she and the children could

permanently relocate to Idaho. On August 14, 2024, the court granted Alisha’s emergency motion

for the limited purpose of admitting evidence and noted that the parties stipulated and agreed to

enter her exhibit into evidence.

- 30 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 100 E. Trial Court’s Ruling – Permanent Relocation and Petition to Restrict

¶ 101 On August 15, 2024, the trial court denied count II of Alisha’s relocation petition and

granted her petition to restrict, ordering her to return to the area of her prior Aurora residence and

the children to be enrolled in school no later than September 2, 2024. The court determined that,

based on the totality of the circumstances and having weighed all the statutory factors, Alisha’s

relocation to Idaho was not in the children’s best interests and, thus, denied her petition. As to the

permanent relocation, the court made extensive oral findings, addressing each statutory factor,

which we address in our analysis below.

¶ 102 The court also found that Joshua had seriously endangered the mental or moral health of

the children and that restrictions were appropriate. It enjoined Joshua from: wearing his wedding

ring in the children’s presence; displaying pictures or images of Alisha in their presence; sending

any unsolicited gift to Alisha; praying for the reunification of the family in the children’s presence;

and praying for Alisha in their presence. The court also ordered Joshua to undergo psychological

evaluation (to be scheduled by August 22) and to comply with all recommendations. It ordered

Joshua to sign relevant releases so that the evaluator could communicate with the GAL prior to

completion of the evaluation and to provide Alisha the evaluation and, upon her request, proof of

his compliance with the evaluation’s recommendations. The court also ordered the parties to

register for OurFamilyWizard by August 17 and that all non-emergency communication be on that

platform. It ordered that the communications between the parties pertain to the children and relate

to parenting time or the significant decision-making responsibilities and communications

previously ordered in the allocation judgment. It discharged the GAL.

¶ 103 The court stated that,

- 31 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

“it is not immune to the consequences of its decision today. The Court understands

that [Alisha] has been placed in a very difficult situation by [Joshua]. Notwithstanding that

again the Court does not believe that relocation is the appropriate remedy.

The Court wishes that we could go back in time, that the merits of this case could

have been heard prior to [Alisha’s] relocation to Idaho but again the Court believes that

that order entered without prejudice and therefore [Joshua] was certainly entitled to a

hearing on the merits of the petition for permanent relocation.”

¶ 104 On the same day, Alisha appealed to this court and filed in the trial court an emergency

motion to stay enforcement of the court’s August 15 order, noting that she sought to preserve the

status quo pending her appeal.

¶ 105 On October 1, 2024, Alisha petitioned this court to supplement the record on appeal, noting

that, on August 15, 2024, she filed an emergency motion to stay the order requiring her to return

with the children to Illinois on or before September 2, 2024, pending appeal and noting that the

trial court granted the motion on August 16, 2024, (and an order reflecting this was entered on

August 20, 2024). She alleged that the emergency motion and August 20 order were not included

in the record filed with this court on September 19, 2024, and argued that, because the order relates

to the relocation, it should be included in the record on appeal. On October 3, 2024, Joshua

objected, arguing that Alisha’s notice of appeal did not indicate that she was appealing the decision

relative to the stay, that the motion related to an ancillary matter affecting only the enforceability

of the final judgment, and that granting the motion could potentially lead to a revised briefing

schedule in this accelerated case. This court, on October 7, 2024, denied Alisha’s motion.

¶ 106 II. ANALYSIS

- 32 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 107 Alisha argues that the trial court erred in denying the permanent relocation count (count II)

of her relocation petition. She contends that: (1) the court failed to consider the impact of the

temporary relocation on the children and herself; (2) the GAL and the court failed to ascertain the

children’s wishes as to relocation; (3) the court failed to consider Joshua’s unhealthy behavior

toward Alisha and his lack of involvement with the children and litigation; and (4) the court erred

in determining that Alisha’s reasons for moving to Idaho weighed against relocation by failing to

recognize her motive to leave an abusive situation, to maintain the children’s current emotional

state in Idaho, and her significant improvement in her financial situation. For the following

reasons, we affirm.

¶ 108 Under section 609.2(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act), any

parent with majority or equal parenting time may seek to relocate with the minor children. Id. §

609.2(b). If the other parent objects to the proposed relocation, the parent wishing to relocate must

file a petition with the court seeking permission to move. Id. § 609.2(f). When determining

whether to grant the petition, the court must consider section 609.2(g) of the Act, which provides:

“(g) The court shall modify the parenting plan or allocation judgment in accordance with the

child’s best interests. The court shall consider the following factors:

(1) the circumstances and reasons for the intended relocation;

(2) the reasons, if any, why a parent is objecting to the intended relocation;

(3) the history and quality of each parent’s relationship with the child and specifically

whether a parent has substantially failed or refused to exercise the parental responsibilities

allocated to him or her under the parenting plan or allocation judgment;

(4) the educational opportunities for the child at the existing location and at the proposed

new location;

- 33 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

(5) the presence or absence of extended family at the existing location and at the proposed

(6) the anticipated impact of the relocation on the child;

(7) whether the court will be able to fashion a reasonable allocation of parental

responsibilities between all parents if the relocation occurs;

(8) the wishes of the child, taking into account the child’s maturity and ability to express

reasoned and independent preferences as to relocation;

(9) possible arrangements for the exercise of parental responsibilities appropriate to the

parents’ resources and circumstances and the developmental level of the child;

(10) minimization of the impairment to a parent-child relationship caused by a parent’s

relocation; and

(11) any other relevant factors bearing on the child’s best interests.” Id. § 609.2(g).

¶ 109 “The party seeking judicial approval of the proposed relocation must establish by a

preponderance of the evidence that the relocation is in the child’s best interests.” In re Marriage

of Kavchak, 2018 IL App (2d) 170853, ¶ 65 (citing In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316, 325

(1988)). The determination of a child’s best interests cannot be reduced to a bright-line test.

Rather, it must be made on a case-by-case basis as such a determination is largely dependent upon

the specific circumstances of each case. Id. A reviewing court will not reweigh the statutory

factors. “It is not the function of this court to reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of

testimony and set aside the trial court’s determination merely because a different conclusion could

have been drawn from the evidence.” In re P.D., 2017 IL App (2d) 170355, ¶ 19. Additionally,

the result cannot be reduced to a “tally” of which party “won” each factor and whether more factors

benefited one party or the other. In re Marriage of Levites, 2021 IL App (2d) 200552, ¶ 71.

- 34 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

“[B]ecause some factors in a particular case may weigh more heavily than others, the trial court

must consider all factors and evidence touching on the issue and must arrive at a reasonable result.”

Id.

¶ 110 We review the trial court’s determination deferentially, as it is in a better position “to

observe both the parents *** and therefore it is able to assess and evaluate their temperaments,

personalities, and capabilities.” Id. Accordingly, “[a] trial court’s determination of what is in the

best interests of the child should not be reversed unless it is clearly against the manifest weight of

the evidence and it appears that a manifest injustice has occurred.” Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d at 328. A

decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence only where it is unreasonable. Kavchak,

2018 IL App (2d) 170853, ¶ 65.

¶ 111 A. Impact of Temporary Relocation

¶ 112 First, Alisha argues that, in assessing permanent relocation, the trial court erred in failing

to consider the impact on the children and herself of the temporary relocation. She notes that, on

December 12, 2023, the court determined that a temporary relocation to Idaho was in the children’s

best interests. Alisha contends that, although a temporary order is entered without prejudice and

is temporary in nature, the trial court permitted the minor children to move across the country. She

argues that the move and their lives in Idaho are, therefore, relevant considerations. According to

Alisha, neither the court nor the GAL placed much weight on the children’s current lives in Idaho

and Joshua’s involvement with the children after the move. The trial evidence, Alisa argues,

showed that the children enjoy Idaho, their home, neighborhood, school, and friends. Also, it is

undisputed, she contends, that their emotional health has improved since the move, and they are

excelling academically. The GAL, Alisha argues, did not interview any Idaho witnesses, including

the children’s teachers, friends, neighbors, and coaches. The GAL testified that the children enjoy

- 35 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

their life in Idaho, but, as with the trial court, did not place much weight on the children thriving

in Idaho. She also notes that, as a result of the temporary order, she sold her Aurora residence and

spent $35,000 moving to Idaho.

¶ 113 Joshua responds that the court was correct not to assign substantial, if any, weight to the

fact that the children resided in Idaho for a period prior to trial. Further, the court considered facts

and circumstances that existed during the temporary relocation period and assigned them their due

weight.

¶ 114 Section 603.5(a-5) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that “[a] court may order the

relocation of the child on a temporary basis before the entry of a final allocation judgment if it is

in the best interests of the child” and that such relocations “shall be considered temporary in nature

and shall not prejudice either parent in the allocation of parental responsibilities contained in a

final allocation judgment.” Id. § 603.5(a-5). The trial court noted that the temporary relocation

order was entered without prejudice, thus, the temporary relocation carried no weight. To the

extent that Alisha contends that she relied on the temporary order and that some weight should be

placed on such reliance, she misconstrues the Act.

¶ 115 Although the court acknowledged the fact that temporary relocation cannot prejudice either

party as to the final/permanent judgment, it nevertheless (and contrary to Alisha’s assertion)

considered the children’s lives in Idaho when it considered the permanent relocation issue. As to

the aspects of their lives that Alisha raises, specifically, that they enjoy Idaho, their emotional

health has allegedly improved, and that they excel academically, the trial court considered these.

It found that, based on its in camera interviews of the two older children, they enjoy their lives in

both Illinois and Idaho and they enjoy activities in Idaho that they did not do in Illinois. As to

Gavin’s bedwetting, no evidence suggested that Joshua caused it, and Gavin continues to wear an

- 36 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

alarm. As to Clara’s anxiety, the court determined that it occurred regardless of which parent

dropped her off at school and that no evidence suggested that Joshua caused it. This finding was

supported by the evidence. The court also addressed educational opportunities, finding that the

Idaho elementary school was rated higher than the Aurora school pursuant to GreatSchool’s rating,

but that the middle and high schools have similar ratings, and there is greater diversity in Aurora

and the children have succeeded at both elementary schools. The evidence supported the court’s

findings, as it found the GAL credible on this issue. Also, Alisha testified that, prior to the move

to Idaho, the children were doing well in elementary school in Aurora. Addressing the children’s

Aurora elementary school, Joshua testified that Alisha never raised any complaints about the

school prior to her request to relocate, and he stated that all the children did well there.

¶ 116 Finally, we reject Alisha’s assertion that the GAL failed to interview Idaho witnesses, such

as the children’s teachers, friends, neighbors, and coaches. The GAL testified that, when making

a list of witnesses with whom he wishes to speak, he asks the parties for names. In this case, he

spoke to everyone on the parties’ witness list, excluding one of Alisha’s witnesses who never

returned his calls. Thus, Alisha’s argument is not well taken, as she had the opportunity to provide

witness information to the GAL and does not contend that the GAL did not interview particular

witnesses whose information she provided. She did not provide the names of potential Idaho

witnesses, and, now, cannot complain when she did not take advantage of this option.

¶ 117 B. Statutory Factors

¶ 118 1. Circumstances and Reasons for Relocation

¶ 119 Addressing the first factor, the circumstances and reasons for the intended relocation,

Alisha argues that the trial court erred in determining that this factor weighed against relocation.

- 37 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 120 The trial court found that, although her relocation petition alleged that she had a job offer

at a private school where the children would be able to attend at no charge, Alisha did not have a

job offer at the time she filed her petition and the ability to attend at no charge did not come to

fruition. The court noted that, the prior day, it received evidence by stipulation that Alisha had

received a job offer at the school that may allow the children to attend at no charge. However, the

court determined that the primary reason for Alisha’s desire to move to Idaho was her significant

other, and, but for her relationship, Idaho would not have been considered. The court also found

that the job Alisha obtained in Idaho and the jobs she sought are not particular to the Idaho area

and there are jobs of the type she seeks in Illinois that she could have sought before petitioning to

relocate. It determined that the initial job offer and the school attendance “did not become reality.”

It further found that Alisha “wanted as much distance between herself and [Joshua] and the minor

children[,] and [Alisha] was concerned that he was overbearing and potentially dangerous. She

was of the belief that [Joshua] jeopardized the wellbeing of the children by his anger and the

inability to get over the parties’ divorce.” The court also found that Alisha did not provide advance

notice of her intention to relocate, as required by the statute. It noted that it could consider this

factor in determining whether Alisha was attempting to make the move in good faith. It determined

that Alisha’s reasons for relocating ultimately weighed against the relocation to Idaho. (It also

noted that the temporary order was entered without prejudice, thus, the temporary relocation

carried no weight).

¶ 121 Alisha contends that the court failed to recognize her motive to leave an abusive situation,

to maintain the children’s current emotional state in Idaho, and her significant improvement in her

financial situation. She maintains that the court found her testimony regarding Joshua’s

intimidating actions credible and expressed concern over his mental health; however, it did not

- 38 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

consider these factors sufficient for Alisha’s motive to relocate. Alisha also contends that the court

did not consider, as her motivation to permanently relocate, the children’s improved emotional

health in Idaho. She points to Clara’s anxiety and Gavin’s bedwetting, along with her testimony

that Clara had night terrors in Illinois. Alisha notes that the trial court noted these issues no longer

existed in Idaho but found no evidence suggested Joshua caused them, while also finding, in

addressing Alisha’s petition to restrict, that Joshua seriously endangered the children’s mental

health by wearing his wedding ring, keeping a photo of the couple on his phone home screen,

sending flowers and gifts to Alisha, and praying with the children that the family be reunited. She

argues that the issues in the relocation petition and the petition to restrict overlapped; however,

while the court found that Joshua’s behavior a serious endangerment to the children, it did not

apply that determination in its findings regarding the relocation.

¶ 122 Finally, Alisha argues that the court failed to consider the improvement to her financial

situation by residing in Idaho. She takes issue with court’s finding that she could have found

suitable employment in Illinois, asserting that she had difficulty finding employment in this state

as a teacher because she does not have certification and had difficulty obtaining employment at

Aurora Christian because of the school’s philosophies. She was able to find employment in Coeur

d’Alene at a charter school, where she will earn $48,000 per year. By contrast, she notes, she

earned $6,300 in Illinois in 2022 and $6,150 in 2023.

¶ 123 Joshua responds that the court found that relocation was not the appropriate remedy to

address his behaviors. This shows, he urges, that the court considered Alisha’s concerns about

Joshua’s conduct relative to her reasons for relocating, although it did not weigh them as she

sought. The court imposed restrictions on Joshua’s parenting time to remedy the alleged conduct,

he notes.

- 39 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 124 As to Alisha’s financial situation, Joshua argues that the record does not support her

assertion, and he contends that any claimed benefit is questionable due to her job search history.

Joshua notes that, in her petition to relocate, Alisha alleged that she sought to move because of a

job opportunity at Classical Christian Academy in Coeur d’Alene. She testified that she received

the offer in November 2023, one month after she filed her petition, and that she had a job offer

waiting for her. However, the headmaster stepped down and the school hired another candidate.

As of the date of her deposition in June, she was not actively applying for jobs in Idaho. After her

deposition, she applied for a new job and was anticipating board approval for an offer from

Kootenai Classical Academy, where she would earn $48,000 per year along with benefits.

Between the date of the divorce and the date she filed her relocation petition, Alisha did not apply

for any teaching jobs in Illinois. She also noted that her tax return did not reflect income from

remodeling bathrooms. Joshua argues that she cannot argue that her income will increase with her

new job in Idaho where the records does not show what Alisha earned through all employment in

Illinois. Further, she testified that her mortgage in Illinois was $1,800 per month, whereas her rent

in Idaho is $2,600 per month. Thus, he argues, it is unclear how the children’s standard of living

will be enhanced by living in Idaho.

¶ 125 We conclude that the court did not err in assessing this factor. The GAL did not believe

Alisha’s reasons for relocation—her concerns for Joshua’s mental health and emotional abuse—

and related that Alisha’s father stated that Alisha’s primary reason for moving was to be with her

significant other (and, we note, Alisha testified this was one of her reasons) and, secondly, that she

was fearful of staying close to Joshua. The GAL opined that Alisha’s reasons did not outweigh

staying in Illinois. As to Alisha’s concerns about Joshua’s mental health and emotional abuse, the

GAL testified that he “did not see” that the children spending time with their father was torture to

- 40 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

them. He opined that both parents are loving parents and that the children love both parents. He

noted, and the parties did not dispute, that the parties did not follow the allocation judgment and

that Joshua had liberal parenting time with the children in Illinois. According to the GAL, Joshua

saw the children four or five days per week. Two of the children—Clara and Caitlyn—told the

GAL that they missed their “daddy nights” after they moved to Idaho. The children reported to

the GAL that they missed Joshua and Aurora. The GAL opined that the children were thriving in

Illinois and appeared to be thriving in Idaho.

¶ 126 Joshua’s mental health was a clear concern, and the GAL acknowledged that it could

impact the children, although he opined that it did not weigh in favor of permanent relocation to

Idaho. He spoke to the parties’ counselor, who stated that Alisha had misrepresented advice he

gave, and told the GAL that he never believed that Joshua was suicidal, homicidal, or required

involuntary commitment, and he never had concerns relating to Joshua and the children. The trial

court, in its order relating to the petition to restrict, from which Joshua has not appealed, imposed

requirements to address Joshua’s mental health issues. Further, the court reasonably discounted

Alisha’s testimony concerning her financial prospects in Idaho. The evidence showed that her job

search in Illinois was minimal and that her monthly housing expenses were lower in Illinois.

Finally, we cannot conclude that the court erred in determining that Alisha’s failure to provide

Joshua notice that she was moving to Idaho, which she conceded, was a factor in assessing her

good faith in making the move. In sum, the court did not err in determining that this factor weighed

against relocation.

¶ 127 2. Objection to Relocation

¶ 128 3. History and Quality of Parental Relationships

- 41 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 129 Alisha’s next argument addresses the second and third factors together. The second factor

requires the court to consider the reasons, if any, why a parent is objecting to the intended

relocation, and the third factor requires the court to consider the history and quality of each parent’s

relationship with the children and specifically whether the parent has substantially failed or refused

to exercise parental responsibilities allocated to them. Alisha contends that, in assessing the two

factors, the court erred by failing to consider Joshua’s unhealthy behavior toward her and his lack

of involvement with the children and the litigation.

¶ 130 Addressing the second factor, the trial court found that Joshua’s bases for objecting—that

it will negatively impact his relationship with the children and diminish his time seeing them in

person—were rational and legitimate. As to the third factor, the court found that, historically,

Alisha has been the primary caretaker and that the children have a wonderful relationship with her.

Joshua has, historically, seen the children four to five days per week, although not in accordance

with the allocation judgment. It determined that it could not find that Joshua substantially failed

or refused to exercise his parenting responsibilities and that the parties’ deviation from the

parenting schedule weighed against the relocation.

¶ 131 Alisha notes that, in June 2023, Joshua was made aware of her desire to move to Idaho,

and, in October 2023, she filed her relocation petition. The petition was sent to Joshua’s email, an

address he testified is the email address he used throughout the divorce proceedings and the one

he used at the time of trial. He also, she further notes, acknowledged receiving an email on October

2, 2023, with the notice and the petition. Despite receiving this notice, Joshua failed to appear on

October 17, 2023, the date the petition was scheduled for presentation, and he subsequently did

not contact the mediator and failed to appear at the hearing on the petition on December 12, 2023.

- 42 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

Alisha also notes that Joshua testified that he chose not to appear in court, despite the possibility

that the children could be granted leave to relocate to Idaho.

¶ 132 Alisha also focuses on the children’s lives in Idaho, arguing that Joshua did not involve

himself in their lives there. He has not, she contends, contacted teachers, attended school

conferences, or contacted the children’s coaches. Nor did he ask Alisha or anyone else what school

the children attended, who their doctors are, or seek out information about Gavin’s baseball games.

Joshua did not visit Idaho or sign up for OurFamilyWizard to communicate with Alisha regarding

the children, despite a court order to do so.

¶ 133 Alisha contends that Joshua’s motive in objecting to the relocation does not relate to his

concern over the impact on his relationship with the children. She argues that Joshua’s motives

are not genuine or legitimate, where he failed to involve himself in their lives in Idaho, made it

clear he would only be involved on his terms, testified he is not certain he would visit Idaho if they

permanently relocated there, and is not sure if he can place the children’s needs above his own if

they remain in Idaho. Alisha also argues that Joshua has an unhealthy obsession with her, which

should have been considered as part of his motive for objecting to the relocation. He prayed over

the children that the parties would get back together, wore his wedding ring, sent her flowers

despite her request to stop, texted her that he prayed for her, and maintained a picture of himself

and Alisha on his home screen.

¶ 134 Joshua responds that Alisha’s assertions are not supported by the record. He notes that his

parenting time was restricted on December 11, 2023, at Alisha’s request. The restrictions were

lifted on May 7, 2024, and, as part of that order, he was granted leave to file a motion to set interim

parenting time pending hearing on the relocation; he did so on May 14, 2024, and Alisha filed a

response, arguing that he be denied liberal parenting time in Illinois. Joshua notes that the trial

- 43 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

court entered a temporary order on May 29, 2024, granting him parenting time from June 15 to

June 23, 2024, and two consecutive weeks in July, both of which he exercised. He contends that

he cannot be faulted for not taking more time than allowed by the court or offered to him. He also

notes that Alisha never granted him permission to visit Idaho, thus, he cannot be faulted for not

taking more time than was offered to him.

¶ 135 Joshua also argues that Alisha did not facilitate his involvement in the children’s academic

and extracurricular activities. She did not discuss with him her choice of Idaho elementary school

prior to enrolling the children there. Although, he contends, she had ultimate decision-making

authority, the allocation judgment requires her to seek Joshua’s input and solicit agreement prior

to making a decision. Aisha also did not inform him of the children’s parent-teacher conferences

and failed to inform him of Gavin’s fifth grade ceremony and baseball games. She also blocked

his phone number. Finally, Joshua contends that his answer to ambiguous questions concerning

placing his needs above the children and the evidence concerning his desire to reconcile, do not

show a suspect motive.

¶ 136 We conclude that the trial court did not err in assessing the factors relating to Joshua’s

bases for objecting and his relationship with the children and exercise of parenting responsibilities.

As Joshua notes, his parenting time was restricted and, once he was granted parenting time, he

exercised it. As to his inquiries into the children’s activities, he correctly notes that Alisha had

been granted sole decision-making authority for the children on December 12, 2023, (which was

vacated on May 7, 2024). Also, Joshua testified that, between the date that Alisha moved to Idaho

and the date of the order granting him phone calls, he spoke to the children 20 times. The GAL

testified that Joshua is a loving parent and addressed Joshua’s mental health, opining that Joshua

struggled with the divorce, potentially had depression, and was not adequately addressing his

- 44 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

issues. The court primarily addressed Joshua’s mental health issues in its order relating to the

petition to restrict. Further, as Joshua notes, his parenting time was restricted for a period because

of the temporary relocation order and Alisha was granted sole decision-making authority. Finally,

as the court found, the parties’ deviation from the allocation judgment, which resulted in Joshua

being granted more parenting time, weighed against permanent relocation.

¶ 137 4. Educational Opportunities

¶ 138 As to the fourth factor, the court addressed the educational opportunities for the children

at the existing location and at the proposed new location. It found that the Idaho school was higher

rated than the Aurora school pursuant to GreatSchool’s rating and that the middle and high schools

have similar ratings. There is greater diversity in Aurora, and the children have succeeded in both

schools. The court noted that it heard no evidence relating to the new school the children might

attend. It determined that this factor was neutral.

¶ 139 Alisha does not challenge this finding, and we conclude that the court did not err in its

assessment. The court addressed all the evidence concerning the quality of the respective schools

in each location and acknowledged the lack of information concerning Kootenai Classical, the

offer from which prompted Alisha’s motion to reopen proofs. Its resolution of the evidence was

reasonable.

¶ 140 5. Extended Family’s Presence

¶ 141 The fifth factor, the presence or absence of extended family at the existing location and at

the proposed new location, the court found, weighed against relocation. It found that the children

have no extended family in Idaho, but have paternal grandparents, an uncle, and several cousins

in the Aurora area. The court acknowledged the dispute over how much time the children spent

with extended family.

- 45 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 142 Alisha does not raise any argument concerning this factor or the court’s findings. We

conclude that the court did not err in assessing the factor. Most of the evidence concerning

extended family was undisputed, and the court acknowledged the disputed evidence concerning

the time spent with Joshua’s family. We cannot conclude that its findings were erroneous.

¶ 143 6. Anticipated Impact on Children

¶ 144 The sixth factor, the anticipated impact of the relocation on the children, the court found,

weighed against relocation. It found that the children would not struggle in school in either

location, and they have made friends in both locations and would continue to do so. However, a

relocation to Idaho would preclude one-on-one time with Joshua, a desire they expressed to the

GAL. The court found that the children have missed Joshua while residing in Idaho, and it noted

the GAL’s statement that Caitlyn asked her sister if she was dreaming when she visited the Aurora

area over the summer. This showed, the court determined, that she was extremely excited to see

Joshua and had missed him after not seeing him for an extended period. Addressing Gavin’s

bedwetting, the court found that it predated the divorce and there was no evidence that Joshua

caused the issue. As to Clara’s anxiety, the court found that it occurred regardless of which parent

dropped her off at school and that no evidence suggested that Joshua specifically caused the issue.

¶ 145 Alisha does not challenge the court’s findings on this factor, and we conclude that the

court’s assessment was not erroneous. The GAL testified that the children love both parents and

that both parents are loving parents. The evidence was undisputed that the children excelled in

school in both Illinois and Idaho, and, as the court determined, made friends in both locations. The

GAL addressed Alisha’s claims that the children viewed time with Joshua as torture, opining that

this was not his impression from his observations of the family. It was for the court to resolve this

dispute, and we cannot conclude that its findings were unreasonable given the children’s reports

- 46 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

of their relationship with Joshua. The children reported to the GAL that they enjoyed their visits

with Joshua over the summer of 2024, the girls reported missing their “daddy nights,” the children

stated that they missed their father. As to the court’s finding regarding Clara’s anxiety, it was

undisputed that it occurred regardless of which parent dropped her off at her Aurora school. As to

Gavin’s bedwetting, Alisha testified, without explanation, that he still wore an alarm in Idaho. The

court also heard evidence concerning Joshua’s praying for reunification, his picture of the couple

on his phone, and his gifts to Alisha and addressed these issues in its order on the petition to

restrict. Overall, we cannot conclude that the court erred in determining that a relocation to Idaho

would preclude one-on-one time with Joshua and that this weighed against relocation.

¶ 146 7. Allocation of Parenting Responsibilities

¶ 147 Next, addressing the seventh factor, whether the court will be able to fashion a reasonable

allocation of parenting responsibilities between all parties if the relocation occurs, the court found

that this factor weighed against relocation because it could not fashion a reasonable allocation. It

determined that, if the children relocate, Joshua will be unable to have one-on-one time with the

children that they are accustomed to in Illinois. Also, if relocation occurred, the children would

spend the majority of their summers in Aurora with Joshua. As he is a real estate attorney, the

summer months are his busiest work months; he testified that he is 75% busier during that time.

Thus, the summer months would likely not be of the same quality such that Joshua would spend

with them if he was able to spend time with them the rest of the year.

¶ 148 Alisha does not challenge these findings. We conclude that the court did not err in

assessing this factor. The evidence concerning Joshua’s summer work schedule was undisputed,

as was the evidence concerning the amount of time he spent with the children while they were in

- 47 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

Illinois. The court reasonably determined that Joshua’s one-on-one time could not be replicated if

relocation occurred and that this factor weighed against relocation.

¶ 149 8. Children’s Wishes

¶ 150 Next, Alisha argues that the trial court and the GAL failed to ascertain the children’s wishes

as to relocation. The eighth factor provides that the court shall consider the wishes of the child

when considering the child’s best interests, taking into account the child’s maturity and ability to

express reasoned and independent preferences as to relocation. The trial court determined that,

based on its in camera interviews of the two older children, this factor was neutral because they

enjoy their lives in both states. Although they enjoy activities in Idaho that they did not do in

Illinois, the activities could be done on vacation to Idaho, and the court found that their wishes did

not weigh strongly in favor of relocating or staying in Illinois.

¶ 151 Generally, a decision whether to interview a child in camera is left to the court’s discretion.

In re Marriage of Jessica F. and Justin H., 2024 IL App (4th) 231264, ¶ 36. “Most judges do not

ask the child directly where [the child] wishes to live and what visitation [the child] would desire.”

In re Marriage of Wycoff, 266 Ill. App. 3d 408, 415 (1994). Further, the Act “does not limit the

trial judge to questioning the child directly as to where [the child] wishes to live[.]” In re Marriage

of Ford, 91 Ill. App. 3d 1066, 1071 (1980).

¶ 152 Joshua initially responds that Alisha has forfeited her argument, because she did not object

to the scope of the inquiry during trial. Ford, 91 Ill. App. 3d at 1071. Counsel received a transcript

of the court’s in camera interviews prior to the second day of trial, and no objection was raised.

We agree that this issue is forfeited. Other than noting in her motion for in camera interviews that

the GAL had not asked the children their preferences of residence, Alisha did not object at any

point during trial that the questioning had not occurred.

- 48 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 153 Forfeiture aside, there was no error. The GAL testified that he felt that, given their ages,

it was not appropriate to ask the children their wishes about relocation. He explained that they

associate Idaho with their mom and Illinois with their dad. In granting Alisha’s motion for in

camera interviews, the court set the parameters, specifically, that the parties submit agreed-upon

questions before the interviews but that they not relate to a preference for a particular parent.

During the interviews, the children answered questions about what they liked and did not like

about Idaho and Illinois, questioning that, in our view, was likely to elicit information concerning

factors they valued in each location. The court did not err in addressing the issue of the children’s

wishes as to relocation.

¶ 154 9. Exercise of Parental Responsibilities

¶ 155 Factor nine, possible arrangements for the exercise of parental responsibilities appropriate

to the parent’s resources and circumstances and the child’s developmental level, the trial court

found that this factor weighed in favor of relocation to Idaho. It determined that the parties had

adequate finances for the travel that would be required for Joshua to have parenting time and that

the children are able to communicate electronically with Joshua.

¶ 156 Alisha does not challenge this finding, and we cannot conclude that the court erred in its

assessment. Joshua is an attorney and testified to his income. There was also evidence that the

children currently communicate electronically with him from Idaho, although Joshua noted that it

is difficult to keep the children’s attention via this method. Thus, the evidence showed that there

are possible arrangements for the exercise of parental responsibilities.

¶ 157 10. Impairment to Parent-Child Relationship

¶ 158 Next, the court addressed the tenth factor, minimization of the impairment to a parent-child

relationship caused by a parent’s relocation and found that it weighed against relocation. It

- 49 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

determined that minimization could not occur if the children relocated to Idaho. They “would not

come close to enjoying the amount of parenting time that they have previously had with” Joshua.

They will not be able to have one-on-one parenting time with him, which they desire. The court

also noted that, when Alisha moved to Idaho, she minimized Joshua’s contact with the children

and ignored requests for information; Joshua had to seek court orders to address electronic

communication and in-person parenting time. The court also determined that Alisha’s testimony

and demeanor reflected that she intends that her significant other assume the role of a father figure

to the children. “Most concerning the Court did not believe that [Alisha] thought there was

anything inappropriate about this.” If relocation occurred, Alisha’s actions would further impair

Joshua’s relationship with the children.

¶ 159 Alisha raises no argument concerning this factor. We conclude that the court did not err in

its assessment. The court reasonably expressed concern that Alisha referred to Joshua as merely

the children’s biological father. She also testified that Kevin is a father figure to the children, is a

better role model for them than Joshua, and is a more appropriate person to spend time with the

children. Alisha testified that she believes Joshua wants the children back for his own interests,

not theirs and that Joshua should have no parenting time if she is allowed to relocate. Her opinions

about the relationship will impact the minimization of any impairment to Joshua’s relationship

with the children caused by the relocation. Further, the distance of Idaho from Illinois would

impact the relationship. Joshua, as the court reasonably found, will not have one-on-one parenting

time with the children if they relocate and this is something he and the children desire. Thus, the

court’s finding that this factor weighed against relocation was not erroneous.

¶ 160 11. Any Other Relevant Factors

- 50 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

¶ 161 Finally, the court addressed the eleventh factor, any other relevant factors bearing on the

child’s best interests and noted that Alisha testified about a better economic situation in Idaho but

did not make any effort to obtain employment in Illinois other than one inquiry. The court found

that suitable employment could be found in Illinois if she sought employment along with her

education. The court also noted Alisha’s testimony concerning her Illinois mortgage and her Idaho

rental cost and noted her mortgage in Illinois was lower than her rental in Idaho. The court also

found that Joshua still struggles with the parties’ divorce. “The Court can only surmise that

[Joshua’s] initial failure to appear at the hearings on the petition to temporarily relocate and to

restrict his parenting time were at least in part the result of his not wanting to face reality.” It

found credible Alisha’s testimony regarding Joshua’s attempts to intimidate her in person and via

texts, but it did not find that relocation was the appropriate remedy to address his behavior.

¶ 162 Overall, the court determined that, based on the totality of the circumstances and having

weighed all the statutory factors, Alisha’s relocation to Idaho was not in the children’s best

interests and, thus, denied her petition.

¶ 163 We conclude that the trial court’s findings on the final factor were not against the manifest

weight of the evidence, nor was its assessment of the statutory factors as a whole. The court was

reasonably skeptical of Alisha’s claims that her career prospects in Idaho were better than in

Illinois, where the evidence showed that her job search here was minimal at best. Also, her claims

that housing costs would be higher in Illinois were belied by the fact that her mortgage in Illinois

was lower than her rental cost in Idaho.

¶ 164 The court heard the evidence concerning the Joshua’s mental health and his failure to

appear at certain hearings, acknowledged Joshua’s actions to intimidate Alisha, yet determined

that, based on the totality of the circumstances, relocation to Idaho was not in the children’s best

- 51 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240471-U

interests. This determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, given the

findings above and the fact that the court addressed Joshua’s mental health issues in the petition

to restrict.

¶ 165 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 166 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County.

¶ 167 Affirmed.

- 52 -