NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2022 IL App (3d) 210304-U
Order filed April 28, 2022 ____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
In re MARRIAGE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court AMY M. LAYER, ) of the 14th Judicial Circuit, ) Rock Island County, Illinois. Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. 3-21-0304 and ) Circuit No. 18-D-435 ) BENJAMIN M. LAYER, ) The Honorable ) Linnea E. Thompson, Respondent-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hauptman and Holdridge concurred in the judgment. ____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: Trial court’s allocation of parenting time, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where it was consistent with parenting plan that had been in place for nearly two years and the children were thriving.
¶2 In November 2018, petitioner Amy M. Layer filed a petition for dissolution of marriage
against respondent Benjamin M. Layer. The parties had two children together: S.L. and J.L. In
June 2019, the parties participated in mediation, and a parenting plan was created allocating
Benjamin parenting time on alternating weekends, one evening during the week, one overnight during the week, and every weekday morning before school. Soon after that plan was implemented,
Benjamin objected to it because he wanted more time with the children. Following a hearing on
April 16, 2021, the trial court entered an order allocating parenting time to Benjamin that was very
similar to what was set forth in the mediation parenting plan. Benjamin appeals, arguing that the
trial court’s allocation of parenting time was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We
affirm.
¶3 BACKGROUND
¶4 Amy and Benjamin Layer were married in 2008. During their marriage, they had two
children together: S.L., who was born in June 2009, and J.L., who was born in August 2012. In
February 2018, the parties separated, and in November 2018, Amy filed a petition for dissolution
of marriage.
¶5 In June 2019, Amy and Benjamin participated in mediation to create a parenting plan.
During mediation, the parties agreed that Amy would be the primary caregiver of the children and
that Benjamin would have substantial parenting time, consisting of (1) every other weekend from
Friday at 3:00 pm to Sunday at 7:00 pm; (2) every Tuesday from 3:00 pm until Wednesday
morning (when he dropped the children off at school or at 10:00 am on non-school days); (3) every
Thursday from 3:00 pm to 8:00 pm; and (4) every weekday morning before school until he dropped
the children off at school. Shortly after the parenting plan was implemented, Benjamin expressed
dissatisfaction with it and expressed his desire to have more parenting time.
¶6 On April 16, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on parenting time and other issues. The
evidence presented at the hearing established that Amy is a second-grade teacher in the East
Moline School District. During the school year, she works from 7:30 am to 3:15 pm. She has
summers off. She continues to reside in the former marital residence in East Moline.
2 ¶7 Benjamin works as a school psychologist and also owns a private psychology practice. He
works at his school job during the school year from 8:30 am to 3:45 pm. He schedules
appointments with clients in his private practice on evenings and weekends when he does not have
parenting time with his children. He is in the process of purchasing his grandmother’s home in
East Moline, which is approximately half a mile from the marital residence.
¶8 At the time of the hearing, S.L. was 11 years old, and J.L. was 8 years old. The parties
agreed that the children would attend Seton for grade school and middle school and then attend
Alleman High School. They also agreed the children would be raised in the Catholic faith.
¶9 At the hearing, Amy testified that she wanted to continue the parenting time arrangement
created during mediation, which they have followed since June 2019. She feels that schedule is in
the best interest of the children because they “have become very acclimated” to it. She reported
that her children are “very happy” and “doing well in school.” They are both active, involved in
sports and “very physically and emotionally healthy.” They do not have any physical or mental
health problems and seem to have adjusted well to their parents’ separation.
¶ 10 Amy testified that she and Benjamin have good communication about issues with the
children and are usually friendly and cordial to each other. She objected to Benjamin’s request for
more time with the children because she thought it required “too much back and forth every single
day.” She also believes that she provides more structure, routine and consistency with the children.
She explained that when the children are with Benjamin they are “on the go a lot” and not home
very much.
¶ 11 Benjamin testified that his children are happy, healthy, well-adjusted, doing well in school
and involved in extracurricular activities. He described them as “high-achieving kids.” He would
like additional parenting time consisting of overnights every Thursday and every other Sunday on
3 the weekends he has parenting time. He also thought his parenting time should start earlier than
3:00 pm on days the children are not in school. Benjamin admitted that he and the children are
“on the go” a lot during his parenting time but said he has his “own routine, which works
beautifully for our kids.” He testified that when he and Amy first separated, he had the children
overnight on both Tuesdays and Thursdays until June 2019, when the mediation parenting plan
was implemented. Benjamin believes that his children should spend an equal amount of time with
him and Amy.
¶ 12 Both Amy and Benjamin are involved in the lives of their children. They both attend their
children’s sporting events and school functions. Because Benjamin has more flexibility in his
morning schedule during the school year, Amy drops the children off at Benjamin’s house on her
way to work on school days and Benjamin transports the children to school. Amy and Benjamin
work together to arrange for the children to be picked up from school by one of them or their
parents.
¶ 13 Both children have a healthy, loving relationship with both parents and one another, as well
as with their maternal and paternal grandparents and other extended family. Benjamin testified that
there have “been deviations all along” to the parenting schedule created in June 2019 but agreed
that for the last three years the children have spent more time with Amy than with him. Benjamin
believes that the children having additional overnights with him is in their best interest because he
“foster[s] their ideas differently” than Amy.
¶ 14 On May 19, 2021, the trial court entered an order resolving several issues, including
parenting time. After analyzing each of the factors set forth in section 602.7 of the Illinois Marriage
and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/602.7(a) (West 2020)), the trial judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2022 IL App (3d) 210304-U
Order filed April 28, 2022 ____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
In re MARRIAGE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court AMY M. LAYER, ) of the 14th Judicial Circuit, ) Rock Island County, Illinois. Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. 3-21-0304 and ) Circuit No. 18-D-435 ) BENJAMIN M. LAYER, ) The Honorable ) Linnea E. Thompson, Respondent-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hauptman and Holdridge concurred in the judgment. ____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: Trial court’s allocation of parenting time, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where it was consistent with parenting plan that had been in place for nearly two years and the children were thriving.
¶2 In November 2018, petitioner Amy M. Layer filed a petition for dissolution of marriage
against respondent Benjamin M. Layer. The parties had two children together: S.L. and J.L. In
June 2019, the parties participated in mediation, and a parenting plan was created allocating
Benjamin parenting time on alternating weekends, one evening during the week, one overnight during the week, and every weekday morning before school. Soon after that plan was implemented,
Benjamin objected to it because he wanted more time with the children. Following a hearing on
April 16, 2021, the trial court entered an order allocating parenting time to Benjamin that was very
similar to what was set forth in the mediation parenting plan. Benjamin appeals, arguing that the
trial court’s allocation of parenting time was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We
affirm.
¶3 BACKGROUND
¶4 Amy and Benjamin Layer were married in 2008. During their marriage, they had two
children together: S.L., who was born in June 2009, and J.L., who was born in August 2012. In
February 2018, the parties separated, and in November 2018, Amy filed a petition for dissolution
of marriage.
¶5 In June 2019, Amy and Benjamin participated in mediation to create a parenting plan.
During mediation, the parties agreed that Amy would be the primary caregiver of the children and
that Benjamin would have substantial parenting time, consisting of (1) every other weekend from
Friday at 3:00 pm to Sunday at 7:00 pm; (2) every Tuesday from 3:00 pm until Wednesday
morning (when he dropped the children off at school or at 10:00 am on non-school days); (3) every
Thursday from 3:00 pm to 8:00 pm; and (4) every weekday morning before school until he dropped
the children off at school. Shortly after the parenting plan was implemented, Benjamin expressed
dissatisfaction with it and expressed his desire to have more parenting time.
¶6 On April 16, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on parenting time and other issues. The
evidence presented at the hearing established that Amy is a second-grade teacher in the East
Moline School District. During the school year, she works from 7:30 am to 3:15 pm. She has
summers off. She continues to reside in the former marital residence in East Moline.
2 ¶7 Benjamin works as a school psychologist and also owns a private psychology practice. He
works at his school job during the school year from 8:30 am to 3:45 pm. He schedules
appointments with clients in his private practice on evenings and weekends when he does not have
parenting time with his children. He is in the process of purchasing his grandmother’s home in
East Moline, which is approximately half a mile from the marital residence.
¶8 At the time of the hearing, S.L. was 11 years old, and J.L. was 8 years old. The parties
agreed that the children would attend Seton for grade school and middle school and then attend
Alleman High School. They also agreed the children would be raised in the Catholic faith.
¶9 At the hearing, Amy testified that she wanted to continue the parenting time arrangement
created during mediation, which they have followed since June 2019. She feels that schedule is in
the best interest of the children because they “have become very acclimated” to it. She reported
that her children are “very happy” and “doing well in school.” They are both active, involved in
sports and “very physically and emotionally healthy.” They do not have any physical or mental
health problems and seem to have adjusted well to their parents’ separation.
¶ 10 Amy testified that she and Benjamin have good communication about issues with the
children and are usually friendly and cordial to each other. She objected to Benjamin’s request for
more time with the children because she thought it required “too much back and forth every single
day.” She also believes that she provides more structure, routine and consistency with the children.
She explained that when the children are with Benjamin they are “on the go a lot” and not home
very much.
¶ 11 Benjamin testified that his children are happy, healthy, well-adjusted, doing well in school
and involved in extracurricular activities. He described them as “high-achieving kids.” He would
like additional parenting time consisting of overnights every Thursday and every other Sunday on
3 the weekends he has parenting time. He also thought his parenting time should start earlier than
3:00 pm on days the children are not in school. Benjamin admitted that he and the children are
“on the go” a lot during his parenting time but said he has his “own routine, which works
beautifully for our kids.” He testified that when he and Amy first separated, he had the children
overnight on both Tuesdays and Thursdays until June 2019, when the mediation parenting plan
was implemented. Benjamin believes that his children should spend an equal amount of time with
him and Amy.
¶ 12 Both Amy and Benjamin are involved in the lives of their children. They both attend their
children’s sporting events and school functions. Because Benjamin has more flexibility in his
morning schedule during the school year, Amy drops the children off at Benjamin’s house on her
way to work on school days and Benjamin transports the children to school. Amy and Benjamin
work together to arrange for the children to be picked up from school by one of them or their
parents.
¶ 13 Both children have a healthy, loving relationship with both parents and one another, as well
as with their maternal and paternal grandparents and other extended family. Benjamin testified that
there have “been deviations all along” to the parenting schedule created in June 2019 but agreed
that for the last three years the children have spent more time with Amy than with him. Benjamin
believes that the children having additional overnights with him is in their best interest because he
“foster[s] their ideas differently” than Amy.
¶ 14 On May 19, 2021, the trial court entered an order resolving several issues, including
parenting time. After analyzing each of the factors set forth in section 602.7 of the Illinois Marriage
and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/602.7(a) (West 2020)), the trial judge
concluded that “it is in the best interest of the children that they have parenting time with both
4 parents but that [Amy] should be designated as the primary caregiver.” The court set forth
Benjamin’s parenting time as follows: (1) every other weekend from Friday at 3:00 pm to Sunday
at 7:00 pm during the school year, and ending on Monday at 10:00 am during the summer and on
school holidays; (2) every Tuesday from 3:00 pm until school the next morning, or 10:00 am the
next morning if there is no school; (3) every Thursday from 3:00 pm until 8:00 pm during the
school year, or until Friday at 10:00 am if there is no school; and (4) every weekday morning
before school during the school year.
¶ 15 ANALYSIS
Section 602.7 of the Act requires courts to allocate parenting time in accordance with the
best interests of the child. 750 ILCS 5/602.7(a) (West 2020). In allocating parenting time, the court
shall consider all relevant factors, including (1) each parent's wishes; (2) the child's wishes; (3) the
amount of time each parent spent performing caretaking functions with respect to the child in the
24 months preceding the filing of any petition for allocation of parental responsibilities; (4) any
prior agreement or course of conduct between the parents relating to caretaking functions; (5) the
interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parents and siblings and with any other person
who may significantly affect his best interests; (6) the child's adjustment to his home, school, and
community; (7) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; (8) the child's needs;
(9) the distance between the parents' residences; (10) whether a restriction on parenting time is
appropriate; (11) the physical violence or threat of physical violence by the child's parent directed
against the child or other member of the child's household; (12) each parent's willingness and
ability to place the child's needs ahead of his or her own; (13) each parent's willingness and ability
to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the
child; (14) the occurrence of abuse against the child or other member of the child's household;
5 (15) whether one parent is a sex offender or resides with a sex offender; (16) the terms of the
parent's military family-care plan if a parent is a member of the United States Armed Forces who
is being deployed; and (17) any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant. Id. §
602.7(b).
¶ 16 “Because the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and
determine a child's best interests, its decision regarding the allocation of parenting time must be
accorded great deference.” In re Marriage of Whitehead & Newcomb-Whitehead, 2018 IL App
(5th) 170380, ¶ 15. We will not overturn a trial court's allocation of parenting time unless the
decision is an abuse of the court’s considerable discretion or is against the manifest weight of the
evidence. Id. A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite
conclusion is clearly apparent or the findings appear unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the
evidence. Id. ¶ 21.
¶ 17 “Stability and continuity are in the best interests of a child.” In re Custody of G.L., 2017 IL
App (1st) 163171, ¶ 46 (citing In re Marriage of Lonvick, 2013 IL App (2d) 120865, ¶ 33). Where
the statutory best-interest factors do not greatly favor one parent over the other, a trial court’s order
allowing both parties substantial, but not equal, parenting time is not an abuse of discretion or
against the manifest weight of the evidence. See Whitehead & Newcomb-Whitehead, 2018 IL App
(5th) 170380, ¶ 36.
¶ 18 Here, a review of the statutory best-interest factors shows no factors greatly favoring one
parent over the other. However, two factors -- the amount of time each parent spent performing
caretaking functions with respect to the children in the preceding 24 months, and any prior
agreement or course of conduct between the parents relating to caretaking functions (750 ILCS
5/602.7(a)(3)-(4) (West 2020)) -- weigh slightly in Amy’s favor.
6 ¶ 19 Since the parties separated, the children have spent substantial time with both parents but
more time with Amy. S.L. and J.L. are happy, health, well-adjusted children, who have good
relationships with each other, their parents and members of their extended family. Both parents
are fit, capable and actively involved in their children’s lives. The parties have good
communication with each other and want what is best for their children. The children are thriving
under the parenting plan created in 2019. The trial court’s order effectively continues that parenting
plan, thereby providing the children stability and continuity, which is in their best interests. See
G.L., 2017 IL App (1st) 163171, ¶ 46; Lonvick, 2013 IL App (2d) 120865, ¶ 33. Under these
circumstances, the trial court’s order granting both parents substantial parenting time, with slightly
more to Amy, is not against the manifest weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion. See
Whitehead & Newcomb-Whitehead, 2018 IL App (5th) 170380, ¶ 36.
¶ 20 CONCLUSION
¶ 21 The judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island is affirmed.
¶ 22 Affirmed.