Villareal v. Medina

2021 IL App (1st) 201230-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: August 6, 2021
• Docket: 1-20-1230
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2021 IL App (1st) 201230-U

SIXTH DIVISION August 6, 2021

No. 1-20-1230

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). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

VANESSA VILLARREAL, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Petitioner-Appellant, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 17 D 79984 ) ANTHONY MEDINA, ) The Honorable ) Matthew Link, Respondent-Appellee. ) Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE MIKVA delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Connors and Oden Johnson concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: Where the trial court’s application of certain factors in considering whether relocation would be in the best interests of the minor child was against the manifest weight of the evidence, its denial of the mother’s motion for permission to relocate is reversed.

¶2 Petitioner Vanessa Villarreal and respondent Anthony Medina have one minor child

together. Before us on appeal is the trial court’s denial of Vanessa’s motion to relocate with the

child to Fremont, California. Vanessa asks us to reverse, arguing that the trial court’s judgment

was against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we agree and reverse

the judgment of the trial court. No. 1-20-1230

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 Vanessa and Anthony were never married, but had one child together, Diego, on August 4,

2014. Anthony is also the father, with two of his prior partners, of Diego’s three half-siblings.

¶5 On August 7, 2017, Vanessa and Anthony entered into an agreed judgment allocating

parental responsibilities and parenting time for Diego. They agreed that Vanessa would have sole

decision-making power as to all issues regarding Diego except for extracurricular activities, for

which the parties would share decision-making power. Vanessa was also designated as the primary

residential parent. Anthony was given parenting time on Monday evenings, Thursday overnights,

and alternating weekends, and he was to pick Diego up from daycare and drive him to Vanessa’s

on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

¶6 A. Vanessa’s Petition to Relocate Diego to California and for Child Support

¶7 Pursuant to section 609.2 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act)

(750 ILCS 5/609.2 (West 2018)), on April 18, 2018, Vanessa petitioned the court for leave to

relocate with Diego to her hometown of Fremont, California. In another motion, filed at the same

time, Vanessa also sought temporary and permanent child support from Anthony. In her petition,

Vanessa alleged that she had been “offered several opportunities for advancement” with higher

salary potential than what she currently had “should she decide to transfer” to her company’s

headquarters in San Francisco. She alleged that she had been unable to find comparable

employment opportunities in Chicago.

¶8 Vanessa alleged that Anthony had few extended family members living in Chicago, and

that his family’s involvement with Diego was minimal. Diego was enrolled in daycare for $325

per week, an expense shared equally by Vanessa and Anthony. But because Vanessa had a

significant support system in Fremont, California—approximately 15 close family members,

-2- No. 1-20-1230

including her retired father, who was willing to care for Diego on a full-time basis—babysitting

and childcare expenses for Diego would be minimized by the relocation. Vanessa said that the

school Diego would attend in Fremont, Weibel Elementary School, was “at least equal if not better

than” the public school options in Chicago. In addition, Vanessa alleged she was “eager to facilitate

a close relationship” between Anthony and Diego, and would compensate for the relocation by

allowing visitation “during all major holidays, winter break, spring break, and a portion of the

summer.” Vanessa stated that Anthony would be welcome to visit Diego in Fremont and would be

able to communicate with him by telephone and video call. She would also continue to facilitate

Diego’s relationships with his half-siblings.

¶9 Vanessa concluded her petition by explaining that she wanted to relocate with Diego

because it would allow her to both work at her company’s headquarters for a higher salary and

greatly reduce or eliminate childcare costs, making it possible for her to provide Diego with a

significantly better quality of life. Vanessa said that she wanted to move “primarily based on

increased financial security, familial support, and improved educational opportunities” for Diego.

¶ 10 In his pro se opposition to the relocation, filed on May 25, 2018, Anthony responded that

it was in Diego’s best interests to remain in Chicago because Anthony’s business had not interfered

with the time he spent with Diego, he would “love to have more night stays” with Diego, he picked

up Diego from daycare four days per week, and his mother and sister had provided childcare for

Diego until Diego was two years old. Anthony also alleged that “[a]ny changes [would] be

emotionally damaging” because Diego had relationships with his three-half siblings. Anthony

maintained that Diego had “extended love and support from Anthony’s massive family,” and that

each level of the house Anthony lived in was occupied by relatives. Anthony also said that Diego

had a “wonderful” relationship with his stepmother, Jackie, who Anthony had married in

-3- No. 1-20-1230

November 2017. Anthony alleged his family had provided support in the past and could do so

again in the future.

¶ 11 Anthony later retained counsel and filed an amended answer to Vanessa’s petition in which

Anthony additionally asserted that Vanessa’s higher earnings in California would not result in a

net benefit to her because of the higher cost of living in California. In his amended answer,

Anthony acknowledged that he had only eight overnights per month with Diego but said that he

“consistently [saw Diego] five (5) days per week and ensure[d] that his parenting time between

[Diego], and his three (3) older children *** all [took] place at the same time.” Anthony disagreed

with Vanessa’s assertion that he had few extended family members living in Chicago, arguing

instead that, even though his parents were deceased, he still had “a large extended family of over

50 family members” in the area.

¶ 12 On August 20, 2018, the trial court appointed Joseph Taconi as the guardian ad litem

(GAL) in this matter. On October 1, 2018, the trial court entered a uniform support order requiring

Anthony to pay $867 in child support each month and to pay Vanessa $4335 in retroactive support

for April through September 2018.

¶ 13 B. The GAL’s Recommendation to Let Vanessa Relocate With Diego

¶ 14 In his February 11, 2019, written recommendation on the relocation petition, the GAL

concluded that Vanessa should be allowed to relocate Diego to Fremont, California. The GAL

stated that he had visited both parties’ homes, traveled to California to visit the home of Vanessa’s

parents—where she would initially live if permitted to relocate—and looked at potential residential

options in that area. The GAL noted that both Vanessa and Anthony had “neat and clean” homes

and Diego had his own room at both. Vanessa’s parents’ house in Fremont was “a ranch style

building located in an upscale neighborhood” located only a short distance from the grammar and

-4- No. 1-20-1230

middle schools where Vanessa intended to enroll Diego.

¶ 15 The GAL then discussed each of the factors in sections 602.7 and 609.2 of the Act

governing allocation of parental responsibility decisions (750 ILCS 5/602.7(b) (West 2018)) and

relocation decisions (750 ILCS 5/609.2(g) (West 2018)). As to the parents’ wishes under section

602.7, Vanessa obviously wished for Diego to relocate to California while Anthony wanted Diego

to stay in Chicago. Consideration of Diego’s own wishes was not relevant, as he was only four

years old and had “limited maturity and ability to express reasoned, independent preferences.” The

GAL found Vanessa’s assertions to be “more credible,” although he said Anthony’s were “not

incredible.” He noted that Diego seemed to be closer to and rely more on Vanessa. He

acknowledged, however, that both parents had been involved in Diego’s upbringing and had a

good relationship with him. The GAL said that Diego seemed well adjusted to being with both

parents in either of their current neighborhoods, and that everyone involved was in good physical

and mental health. Noting that at present the distance between Vanessa’s and Anthony’s homes

was minimal, the GAL suggested that if relocation were granted, Anthony should be allowed

substantial parenting time and both parents should be responsible for the cost of transportation.

Finally, the GAL concluded that each parent was willing and able to place Diego’s needs above

his or her own and to facilitate and encourage a close and continuous relationship with him.

¶ 16 Addressing the factors in section 609.2 of the Act, the GAL noted that Vanessa wanted to

relocate because it would provide Diego with a safer neighborhood and better schooling, they

would live with Diego’s grandparents, there would be no daycare costs, Vanessa had a reliable

support system to help her care for Diego, and Vanessa would have opportunities to advance her

career. Fremont, California, had been ranked as the top location to raise a family in California in

September 2017. The GAL noted that Vanessa’s current employer had offices in the Fremont area

-5- No. 1-20-1230

and had advised her that it would attempt to place her in a similar position to her present one. Also,

the neighborhood had less violence and better educational opportunities than the areas in which

Diego was living in Chicago.

¶ 17 The GAL found that both parents had a quality relationship with Diego and both of their

positions were credible. It was “clear” to him, however, that Vanessa and Diego were well-bonded

and that “[Diego] appear[ed] to be closer to [Vanessa] than [Anthony].” As to the existing and

possible future educational opportunities, the GAL noted that if Diego relocated to Fremont, he

would attend a school close to where he would be living that was “neat and clean” and “rated as a

quality educational institution.” For the presence or absence of extended family, the GAL noted

that Vanessa, as the primary residential parent, had no family in Chicago but in Fremont would

have her parents, with whom she and Diego would live, and who were healthy and capable of

helping her to raise Diego. Anthony had his wife and a brother in the Chicago area, as well as his

other three minor children. The GAL “d[id] not foresee any substantial adverse impact on [Diego]

if relocation occurred.”

¶ 18 In his examination of the question of whether the court could fashion a reasonable

allocation of parenting time, the GAL responded emphatically: “[t]he answer to the question is

yes!” Finally, the GAL concluded that any impairment to Diego’s relationship with Anthony could

be “minimized by allowing [Anthony] substantial parenting time.”

¶ 19 The GAL recommended that Vanessa be allowed to relocate to Fremont and that she should

have sole responsibility for decisions relating to Diego’s education, health, and extracurricular

activities, “so long as Diego’s participation in said activities [did] not substantially affect

[Anthony’s] parenting time.” Anthony should have parenting time whenever he visited California

plus seven weeks of parenting time in the summer in Chicago, travel costs should be split equally

-6- No. 1-20-1230

between the parties, and the parent who was not with Diego should have daily contact with him.

¶ 20 C. The Trial

¶ 21 A three-day trial was held in this matter in September and October 2019. The court heard

from Vanessa; her parents, Humberto and Leticia Villarreal; her friend Amelia Rodriguez;

Anthony; his half-sister Dana Rose Mischke; his aunt and godmother Irma Medina; his half-

brother Anthony Fuentes; his wife Jacqueline (Jackie) Medina; and the GAL.

¶ 22 1. Vanessa Villarreal

¶ 23 Vanessa testified that at the time of trial she managed a sales office in Chicago for a tech

company called FinancialForce.com, which had its corporate headquarters in San Francisco,

California. Vanessa, who was born in Fremont, California, and had lived there until she was

approximately 21 years old, still had around 25 relatives living in that area, including her mother

and father, her brother and his two children, her aunt, and a number of cousins.

¶ 24 Vanessa explained that she and Anthony had begun their relationship in 2012, when

Vanessa still lived in California, but had broken up due to the distance. In 2013, Vanessa moved

to Chicago, and because she was unable to find an apartment, she stayed with Anthony. Sometime

around December 2013, Vanessa learned she was pregnant, and she and Anthony decided to try

and make their relationship work. Diego was born on August 4, 2014.

¶ 25 Vanessa said that around the time Diego turned one, she had a hunch that Anthony was

cheating on her. They argued, and Vanessa said she felt at the time that she was being “left alone

*** taking care of his [older] kids and making sure that [her own] son was taken care of.” The two

broke up in July 2016. Vanessa testified that although the breakup was “devasting” for her, she

continued to live with Anthony for another six months while she figured out what she would do

next. In December 2016, Vanessa said that she was very seriously considering moving back to

-7- No. 1-20-1230

California. She testified that she had a heart-to-heart with Anthony, that he agreed to the move,

but that she said “seeing [Anthony] in tears” made her decide to give coparenting in Chicago a

shot. According to Vanessa, Anthony was happy with this choice and said he would be helpful and

have Vanessa’s back. She made clear to him that she had agreed to the arrangement on a trial basis

and that if she was “still feeling alone” then her “answer [would] probably be the same.” Vanessa

said that Anthony told her he understood and would “ ‘never hold [her] and Diego back.’ ”

¶ 26 In January 2017, Vanessa’s father came to Chicago to help her move to her own place in

Chicago. Vanessa testified, however, that as soon as her dad left, her coparenting relationship with

Anthony was “nothing like what he had said that it would be.” In the beginning, Anthony did not

provide any financial support to her or Diego and Vanessa had to pack everything for Diego when

he went to Anthony’s, including diapers and wipes.

¶ 27 Vanessa said that although she and Anthony did not have a written schedule in place until

August 2017, they essentially mimicked the schedule Anthony had with his other children. And

although Vanessa agreed that Anthony did not miss his days with Diego, she described

communicating with him as difficult. By the time Diego started daycare at age two they were

following the schedule in their agreed allocation judgment. Anthony had eight overnights with

Diego per month (96 per year). Vanessa was the one who suggested that Anthony pick Diego up

from daycare on his non-visitation days because she “wanted to make sure that [Diego] s[aw] his

father every single day.” Vanessa also said that Anthony was not always on time for pickups,

occasionally forcing Vanessa to leave work early.

¶ 28 Anthony became engaged to Jackie approximately two months after Vanessa and Diego

moved out, and the two were married in November 2017. Vanessa testified that her relationship

with Jackie was not good, that they were “not on speaking terms,” and that her experience with

-8- No. 1-20-1230

Jackie had been “very hostile.” Vanessa said the coparenting relationship was not working because

the “communication wasn’t really there.” Although Anthony’s two half-brothers and sister-in-law

occasionally picked Diego up from school, Anthony’s sister who lived less than a 10-minute walk

from the school was not available or had not offered to assist with childcare.

¶ 29 Vanessa acknowledged that the coparenting relationship had improved over time and that

she, Anthony, and Jackie had recently held a combined fifth birthday party for Diego. But she said:

“We’re talking about three years of him saying that he was going to be there for me and

our son, and that first year of 2017 was a complete disaster. I never want to repeat that year

in my life. I was alone. I didn’t have anyone to turn to. Could not count on him. He was

too busy proposing to his wife, taking trips with his new wife and, you know, just being

absent in terms of communication and when I told—I told him let’s see how it works in six

months. You would think he would be on his best behavior for six months in trying to

facilitate a coparenting relationship. That was absent. So I had to deal with that for a long

time.”

¶ 30 Vanessa said that she was concerned about the safety of the neighborhood schools where

she and Anthony lived, which she said were “graded like F.” She was happy when Anthony said

he was going to enroll Diego at A.N. Pritzker School, a good school that two of Anthony’s other

children attended that was located just down the street from Anthony’s grandmother. Vanessa

agreed on cross-examination that Anthony told her he would be responsible for all school drop-

offs and pick-ups, but stated that she did not believe him because his job installing tile required

him to be all over the Chicagoland area.

¶ 31 In Fremont, Vanessa said, she would have a strong support system. Her retired father would

walk Diego to and from school, eliminating the need for before- or after-school care. And

-9- No. 1-20-1230

Vanessa’s mother worked for the same school district and would be nearby if Diego needed

anything. Vanessa described the school in Fremont as “really a good school,” and believed

Fremont would be “a great place for Diego to learn and thrive; but along with that comes safety.”

Vanessa said that if they moved to Fremont, she would “hopefully” transfer to her current

employer’s corporate office in San Francisco and would ask to work from home one day per week.

Vanessa also said that, to facilitate Anthony’s relationship with Diego if they moved, she would

visit Chicago occasionally for a weekend or a week in addition to any scheduled time Anthony

had with Diego. Vanessa testified that she would make sure Diego had his own iPad to

communicate with Anthony daily “because I honestly feel, like I felt before, that he needs to

communicate with [Anthony] every day.” And Vanessa also mentioned that Anthony and Jackie

would be welcome to stay at her family’s home in Fremont if they were to visit and Anthony could

have the same 96 overnights that he enjoyed with their current parenting schedule.

¶ 32 Vanessa said that she believed Anthony was a good dad who loved his children but she did

not believe his children were his top priority or that he was able to provide them with adequate

emotional support. She also agreed that her opinion of Anthony changed once they broke up

“[b]ecause his demeanor completely changed as a father.” He became distracted with other women

in his life and “his kids came second.”

¶ 33 2. Vanessa’s Parents

¶ 34 Humberto and Leticia Villarreal, Vanessa’s parents and Diego’s only living grandparents,

lived in Fremont, California, and had been married for 42 years. Humberto was retired and Leticia

worked for the school district, where Diego would attend school if he moved to Fremont.

¶ 35 Humberto testified that he helped Vanessa move to Chicago in November 2013, then

helped her move out of Anthony’s in January 2016. Humberto said he believed that Anthony, as a

- 10 - No. 1-20-1230

father, was “responsible,” “good,” and “hard-working,” but that he had “a lot on his plate” and

that, between his new wife, his three other children, and the mothers of his other children, in

addition to Diego, it was all “too much for him”. Leticia said that when she met Anthony, she

thought “he was a nice guy, kindhearted.” But Leticia was very close with Vanessa, talking daily

via phone calls or text messages, and said Vanessa “struggle[d]” with her life in Chicago: “I know

that she is not really happy. She doesn’t have the support that she should have.” Leticia said that

Vanessa, who had no family in Chicago, had no one to call when she was “[i]n a bind.”

¶ 36 Humberto and Leticia testified that on spring and winter breaks in 2017 and again in 2018,

they flew to Chicago to help Vanessa care for Diego when his daycare was closed. Both said the

main reason for those visits was to provide childcare and not simply to visit with Vanessa and

Diego.

¶ 37 Humberto said he thought Vanessa and Diego should move to Fremont because Vanessa

“is so by herself” in Chicago: “She has nobody, absolutely nobody, and our family circle is really

tight. We have family all over California.” Humberto testified that in Fremont there was family

nearby, “all close within three miles from each other, you know, if something happens,” and that

Vanessa and Diego could stay with Humberto and his wife until Vanessa was able to get “settled.”

As to Anthony’s family, Humberto felt that they lived “kind of” far away and they were “not too

cooperative to help out.” Leticia thought it was important for Diego to move to California for

“family support, education, the crime, safety, *** job opportunities for Vanessa.” The Fremont

family was very close-knit and got together on a weekly basis.

¶ 38 Humberto said the school Diego would attend was within walking distance from their

house, he could pick Diego up from school, and all the schools in the area were top-rated. In

Chicago, Diego’s school was not close to Vanessa’s home and he worried about her travelling with

- 11 - No. 1-20-1230

him through the snow in the winter. Leticia had visited Pritzker, the school Diego had just started

attending in Chicago, and said it was a good school. Like Humberto, however, she was concerned

that the school was not close to Vanessa, and Anthony worked “all over the place,” making drop-

offs and pick-ups more difficult, and requiring before- and after-school care. Leticia testified that

the school Diego would attend in Fremont was highly rated, had a “vigorous” curriculum, and had

a variety of extracurricular programs.

¶ 39 Humberto and Leticia were also both concerned with Vanessa’s and Diego’s safety. The

first time they visited Vanessa and Diego in Chicago, they heard multiple gunshots nearby at 4

a.m. They worried that Vanessa had no one to help her in an emergency.

¶ 40 Humberto and Leticia said that they would “make it as easy as possible” for Anthony to

visit and communicate with Diego and would do “whatever it [took]” to facilitate Anthony and

Diego’s relationship because Anthony was the father of their grandson. Humberto also said that

he would take Diego to visit Anthony as well.

¶ 41 On cross-examination, Humberto disagreed with Anthony’s lawyer’s suggestion that he

viewed Diego moving to California as a punishment for Anthony not trying harder to make things

work with Vanessa, saying, “[i]t’s not a punishment. That’s the place where it would be best for

Diego. I’m not even thinking about Vanessa or Tony. I’m thinking where would be the best place

for Diego to become a better man.”

¶ 42 A letter Humberto and Leticia wrote to the GAL on November 2, 2018, after the GAL’s

visit to Fremont, was admitted as evidence. In addition to mirroring much of what was in their trial

testimony, in the letter the Villarreals noted that Diego video-chatted with his California cousins

weekly and had “become very close” with them. The Villarreals described Fremont as a “very safe

suburban city with many friendly and family-oriented people in the community” and a place where

- 12 - No. 1-20-1230

children could play outside without fear. They impressed upon the GAL that Diego was

“intelligent” and “curious” and needed “to attend a school that positively challenge[d] him and

foster[ed] his love for learning.” They said that the Fremont schools “have ranked the highest best

schools in California,” and Weibel Elementary in particular was graded an “A” and ranked #480

out of the 5881 best public elementary schools in California. The high school Diego would

attend—Mission San Jose High School—had also received an “A+” grade and was ranked #6 out

of the 1334 of the best college prep public high schools in California.

¶ 43 The Villarreals concluded by stating:

“Diego is an extremely smart, intelligent, imaginative and energetic little boy who

needs to be challenged and given the best environment in order for him to excel and reach

his maximum capacity. This Halloween, he didn’t want to be a superhero or anything like

that; He wanted to be an astronaut because he said he wanted ‘to reach the stars.’ We were

so wide-eyed that, at the age of four, he came up with that on his own. We just know the

great potential that our grandson has. We just know that he can reach that potential if given

the chance to grow up in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Bay Area has so much to offer

him. *** We want Diego to have the best education and will encourage higher education

options. We honestly feel that the best chance for a child to succeed is by putting him in an

equitable playing field with many opportunities for growth. Looking at what his options

are, we truly feel that the relocation to California will be extremely critical for his

development and well-being.

As Diego’s grandparents we commit to help assist in the upbringing of Diego. We

love and adore him just as much, if not more, than he loves his grandpa and grandma.

We’ve been in his life from the minute he was born. We promise to provide a warm,

- 13 - No. 1-20-1230

nurturing, and loving home environment, as well as provide as much support as possible

for our daughter and grandson.”

¶ 44 3. Amelia Rodriguez

¶ 45 Amelia Rodriguez, Vanessa’s friend and roommate, testified that she had known Vanessa

for 12 or 13 years and had lived with her in Chicago for 2 1/2 years. Amelia described Vanessa’s

life as “chaotic,” “stressful,” and “unhappy” because she lacked “a reliable support system.”

Vanessa did not receive enough support from Anthony because, in Amelia’s opinion, Anthony had

“a lot of other priorities in his life.” Amelia did not think much of the arrangement between

Vanessa and Anthony after they broke up, viewing it as “more her pushing the co-parenting rather

than him pushing for it or wanting to work together.” Amelia described Anthony as “unreliable”

and said that he was not good at communicating with Vanessa about when he was going to pick

Diego up. Amelia was also aware that Vanessa had received no financial support from Anthony

for the first year that Amelia and Vanessa lived together. Amelia helped out with Diego when she

could but believed that Vanessa’s reasons for wanting to move to California were justified.

¶ 46 4. Anthony Medina

¶ 47 Anthony testified that he owned his own tile business, his schedule was “somewhat” set,

and he could manage his schedule based on his life needs. He owned a bungalow-style house with

six bedrooms, so each of his children could have “their own space and privacy.” Anthony said that

he and his siblings did not grow up with their fathers around, and that as a result, his “sole purpose

in life is to be there as much as [he] can for all [of his] children.” At the time of trial, his three

older children were 14, 13, and 12 years old, while Diego was 5. Anthony testified that he had a

good relationship with each of his children’s mothers. He scheduled his parenting time so that the

kids could be together, and they were “very close.”

- 14 - No. 1-20-1230

¶ 48 Anthony testified that of his nine half- or step-siblings, five lived in the Chicagoland area

and most had children of their own. His family spent time together “all the time.” Anthony said

that he had a lot of nieces and nephews, there were birthday parties “almost every other weekend,”

and that hardly a weekend went by where something was not being celebrated. According to

Anthony, Diego was frequently a part of these gatherings, and Vanessa herself sometimes

attended. Anthony said that his family was “as close as they come.” Anthony’s mother and sister

had watched Diego for the first two years of his life and Anthony said, “I can call on any one of

my family members and I’m sure they would say just bring him to me, you know, whatever you

need.” Anthony also pointed out that Vanessa was good friends with two of his cousins and with

his brother’s wife. Anthony said his family was “[a]bsolutely” willing to help. Anthony provided

an example recently when Diego was sick at school and his sister Dana went to pick him up.

Anthony said that Vanessa need only call him if she needed something—“if there’s anything that

she ever needs, whether she’s going to hang out with some friends on a weekend that’s her

weekend, or she has plans or something outside of being able to bring Diego, she knows that all

she can do is call me and if I’m not doing anything, which normally I’m just doing things that are

kid-friendly, she knows that I’m willing and able.”

¶ 49 Anthony testified that Jackie and Diego would play, bake, and read together, “[e]verything

that you can think of that a stepmother would be involved. She helps them with homework. Just

countless things.”

¶ 50 Anthony testified that Diego had started kindergarten at Pritzker, and that Anthony’s

daughter was in eighth grade and his son in seventh grade at that school, which they had both

attended since kindergarten. Anthony said it was not the school his children were “supposed” to

go to residence-wise because when he purchased his house, it removed him from that school’s

- 15 - No. 1-20-1230

neighborhood, “but since they have the two siblings they allowed [Anthony] to enroll [Diego].”

Anthony had nothing negative to say about the school, he thought the teachers went “above and

beyond,” and that the community was also very involved. Anthony said that he had offered to

Vanessa to avoid before- and after-school care on the days he had Diego to minimize the cost, and

had asked for more overnights with Diego, but that Vanessa had refused.

¶ 51 Anthony told the court:

“[T]his is the hardest thing I have ever had to deal with. I feel losing my son would make

me incomplete, you know. I want to be there if he has a recital at school. I don’t want to

watch it on a video, on social media. I want to be there physically for him.”

I want to be able to teach him sports and take the training wheels off of his bike,

and I just want to be able to continue to love him and provide for him and provide the

resources that I as a child never had, you know. I did not have a father growing up and it

just makes me want to be there even more for my kids.”

¶ 52 At the time of trial, Anthony saw Diego on Mondays, Thursdays, Friday mornings, and

Saturdays and Sundays when he had him for the weekend. When Diego started kindergarten,

Anthony no longer picked Diego up to drive him to Vanessa’s on his non-visitation days. Anthony

said his family was his support system, they relied on each other and loved each other, and that

extended to Vanessa because she was the mother of his son.

¶ 53 On cross-examination, Anthony acknowledged that during these proceedings he had been

ordered to pay $867 in child support per month in addition to retroactive child support totaling

$4335. He admitted he was not current on his child support obligation and did not cover health

insurance for his children. When asked if he realized that he would have the same number of

overnights with Diego if Diego were relocated, Anthony responded, “[w]ell, the 96 still isn’t

- 16 - No. 1-20-1230

enough. I still want more time with my kid.” But he also admitted that at that time he had not filed

any petition for more parenting time.

¶ 54 5. Jacqueline Medina

¶ 55 Jackie Medina, Anthony’s wife, testified that she and Anthony had been involved off and

on since 2010 and were married in November 2017. Jackie said that she had a relationship with

Anthony’s children from the very beginning and that Anthony always spent a significant amount

of time with his children. Since marrying Anthony, Jackie said she had assisted with pick-ups and

drop-offs for the older children, but she was not permitted to pick Diego up from daycare because

Vanessa had said she did not want Jackie picking him up.

¶ 56 Jackie said she believed she had a great relationship with the children, “[a]bsolutely I love

those kids,” and that she loved Diego “so much.” Jackie testified that the children also had a “great”

relationship with each other and that they did a lot of activities together as a family, playing

basketball or volleyball at home, baking, going to the park, and taking bike rides.

¶ 57 Jackie agreed that Anthony’s job required him to go “all around Chicago and the north

suburbs,” but said it did not interfere with his parenting or visitation schedule. Jackie estimated

that Anthony had “50 plus” family members in the Chicago area and they regularly got together at

Anthony and Jackie’s house and at Anthony’s grandma’s house for birthday parties, graduations,

and holidays. Jackie said that since they had moved into a house with a porch and backyard they

had gatherings there “at least twice a month” with Anthony’s brothers, sister, aunts, uncles,

cousins, nieces, nephews, grandmother, and friends. Jackie said she respected Vanessa and had no

ill will toward her at all, she respected the fact that Diego was Vanessa’s son, and that this did not

make Jackie love Diego any less.

¶ 58 Jackie said if Diego were relocated to California, “[a]bsolutely it would have an impact on

- 17 - No. 1-20-1230

[her].” Jackie said that she had built a relationship with him since he was two and it had been

“wonderful,” so it would be emotional and hurt her if he relocated because “[she] love[d] that little

boy.” Jackie testified that she wanted to continue to see Diego regularly according to the schedule

that had been established. She did not think relocation would be beneficial for Diego. Jackie said

that she felt “lifting Diego from his home in Chicago would be detrimental not just to [Anthony]

but to him. *** I think psychologically it might hurt him—it will hurt him.”

¶ 59 6. Anthony’s Family

¶ 60 Anthony’s half-sister Dana Rose Mischke, half-brother Anthony Fuentes; and Irma

Medina, his godmother and aunt, each testified to a strong relationship between Anthony and his

family. Dana said she had a “solid” relationship with Anthony and a “strong” relationship with his

children because she saw them frequently and had watched them grow up, although Dana was

unable was to give the children’s ages when asked, explaining “[t]here’s a lot of them.” Mr.

Fuentes said that he was close to his siblings and that Anthony was the “closest to [him].”

¶ 61 Dana had a “pretty good” relationship with Diego as she had watched him full-time until

he was two years old. Irma said she had also spent time with Diego and that her children and Diego

were “always together laughing or playing games.”

¶ 62 Dana estimated that she and Anthony had approximately 30 cousins living in the

Chicagoland area, in addition to aunts and uncles, and that the family got together often, especially

in the summer. Irma described the family as “close-knit” and said that if a week passed without

them getting together, someone would suggest a get-together. Irma also testified that she could not

estimate how many nieces and nephews she had in the Chicagoland area because there were “so

many.” Mr. Fuentes said that there were “[p]robably seven, eight, ten” other family members in

the Chicagoland area, and that “[t]here[ were] times [they had] gotten together,” gone to the park

- 18 - No. 1-20-1230

with the kids, or celebrated birthdays.

¶ 63 Dana said that, from her observations, Anthony’s four children loved each other and

“love[d] spending time together. They just have a lot of love for one another.” Dana also said that

Anthony loved and “genuinely like[d] to spend time with” his children. Mr. Fuentes said he saw

Anthony’s four children together “[a]ll of the time” and that they were “very close” and loved each

other.

¶ 64 Dana said that there was not much communication between her and Vanessa but that it was

not a bad relationship. If Vanessa called, Dana would answer, and Dana would be willing to watch

Diego for Vanessa if Vanessa asked. Because Vanessa was the mother of Dana’s nephew, she

considered Vanessa to be an extension of the family. Dana said she would “[o]f course” be willing

to pick Diego up from school if there was an emergency, and his school was in her neighborhood.

Irma bore no ill will toward Vanessa and had told Vanessa to call if she needed help. Irma said the

lack of communication between them was Vanessa’s choice, and Irma had driven in from where

she lived in Aurora to pick Diego up from daycare “a couple of times.” Mr. Fuentes likewise said

that he would be happy to help Vanessa with Diego, and he had offered help previously.

¶ 65 Dana testified that Anthony would feel “incomplete” if Diego moved to Fremont, and it

would impact their family and her personally because it was “important to [her] to have strong

bonds with the kids.” Dana also did not think the relocation would be beneficial to Diego in any

way. Irma said that Anthony “always made sure the kids and his wife are always first” and that he

and his children were “always together, never apart.” Irma believed that Diego would have a tough

time not seeing his dad and siblings. Mr. Fuentes also described Anthony as “a great dad” and said

he put his children first above all else. Mr. Fuentes said that the whole family would be affected if

Diego relocated: “It would be pretty sad” because the relationships would not be the same.

- 19 - No. 1-20-1230

¶ 66 Dana testified that she was not aware of Vanessa ever doing anything to alienate Anthony

from Diego, saying she “d[idn’t] see that happening.” Mr. Fuentes similarly said that to his

knowledge, Vanessa had not denied Anthony time with Diego and he had no reason to think

Vanessa would do so if she and Diego relocated.

¶ 67 7. Joseph Taconi, the GAL

¶ 68 Joseph Taconi testified that as GAL he was obligated to “do what [wa]s best for the child

that [wa]s the subject of the case,” to “make recommendations relative to whatever issue present[d]

itself,” and “to a certain extent, advocate for the child.” Mr. Taconi had been a GAL for

approximately 36 years. He testified that in this case, he felt it was important to travel to Fremont,

to go to the mother’s home, and to go to the father’s home. Mr. Taconi said he had met with both

parents about five or six times each. He made clear that “[n]one of the people in this case [were]

bad people.”

¶ 69 Mr. Taconi said he had reviewed the relocation statute and the factors for determining what

was in the best interests of the child, evaluated the facts in light of those factors, and made his

recommendation in favor of granting Vanessa’s petition for relocation. Mr. Taconi agreed that

having a child live across the country would impact one’s ability to be a parent. He also agreed

that his recommendation did not include a statistical analysis to show that Fremont was safer than

Chicago or any evidence to substantiate that Diego would receive better schooling in Fremont. Mr.

Taconi testified that “[t]o [his] knowledge [Vanessa] ha[d] no formal offer of a secure job if she

[went] to Fremont, California.”

¶ 70 Mr. Taconi testified that “it struck [him] as unusual that [Anthony] would take the position

in this case that the removal shouldn’t occur when, in fact, the allocation judgment didn’t give him

the—didn’t give him a say-so relative to education and medical treatment.” When Mr. Taconi saw

- 20 - No. 1-20-1230

Diego interacting with his siblings at Anthony’s house, “they all got along well together,” but “it

was a bit chaotic because you have four children who are minors running around, *** but the one

thing I do recall is that the kids did get along well together.” The GAL also said that the fact that

Anthony had four children with three women, none of whom he was married to, “show[ed] a bit

of a lack of maturity” on Anthony’s part. But the GAL believed that Anthony “[a]bsolutely” cared

for his children and that Diego had a relationship with his siblings and his father. Mr. Taconi still

felt, however, that overall “relocation would be in Diego’s best interest.” Mr. Taconi did not review

any case law, just the statutory language, but said his experience supported his position.

¶ 71 Mr. Taconi acknowledged that he spoke to Jackie but no one else in Anthony’s extended

family. Mr. Taconi also said that he was “surprised” at the number of people that came to court to

testify on Anthony’s behalf, which he viewed as “positive.” Mr. Taconi maintained his opinion

that although Diego’s relationship with Anthony would be impacted if relocation was permitted,

it would not be impacted severely “because steps [could] be taken to give [Anthony] the same

amount, if not more, of parenting time.”

¶ 72 In Fremont, Mr. Taconi was picked up from the airport by Vanessa’s parents and testified

that the neighborhood was “well-kept” and “neat.” He saw the house, then he was driven to the

school and received information about the Fremont school system and the specific school Diego

would attend. Mr. Taconi did not meet with any administrative personnel from the school.

¶ 73 Mr. Taconi testified that he did not go to Pritzker personally, though he passes by it often.

Nor, given Diego’s young age, did Mr. Taconi ask Diego where he wanted to live. Mr. Taconi said

he had determined, after he wrote the report, that if relocation were allowed Anthony should be

given eight weeks, rather than seven of time with Diego in Chicago in the summer. He had also

looked at a calendar and realized that Diego could go to Chicago for one weekend per month

- 21 - No. 1-20-1230

during the school year during the six or seven months that there was a holiday on a Friday or a

Monday. Mr. Taconi did not believe Chicago was a safe place to raise a child and was not

impressed with Vanessa’s or Anthony’s neighborhood in Chicago, describing them both as “crime-

ridden.”

¶ 74 Mr. Taconi testified that Diego seemed to be more bonded with and dependent on Vanessa

than Anthony. Mr. Taconi also testified that he did not take the impact on Diego’s relationship

with his siblings into account “because [he] didn’t know and [he] did not meet the siblings other

than just being made aware of the fact that [Anthony] has four children with different mothers.”

But Mr. Taconi testified that the relationship with Diego’s siblings would be impacted similarly to

how his relationship with Anthony would be impacted.

¶ 75 When asked by Anthony’s lawyer at the end of his testimony, “[i]n candor, Mr. Taconi, is

it still your opinion that [Vanessa] has met her burden,” Mr. Taconi responded, “[b]arely.” Mr.

Taconi explained that the reason he gave that answer was, “if I was handling the case as her

advocate, I would have done certain things prior to and up until today’s date, but that’s an

individual attorney’s outlook on how he or she handles the specific case.”

¶ 76 D. The Trial Court’s Denial of the Petition to Relocate

¶ 77 The trial court entered its judgment denying Vanessa’s petition to relocate Diego on

January 23, 2020. In it, the court found that pursuant to the parenting plan, Anthony had time with

Diego on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday of each week, which the court deemed

“substantial.” The court then listed and considered each of the factors in section 609.2(g) of the

Act. The court found that “[n]otwithstanding the lack of the evidence indicating that relocation

would enhance [Vanessa’s] opportunities,” certain factors did weigh in favor of relocation. The

court noted that Vanessa’s parents clearly loved Vanessa and Diego and wanted what was best for

- 22 - No. 1-20-1230

them both. The court had no doubt that Diego would be provided with “a stable and loving living

environment in Fremont.” The court felt, however, that Anthony’s objections weighed “strongly

against relocation.” It noted that Anthony’s relationship with his children was “very important to

him,” he scheduled his life around them, and Diego regularly spent time with his three half-

siblings. The court found that the next factor was neutral, as both parents loved Diego and were

actively involved in his life. Because it was not provided with an evidentiary basis to find that

educational opportunities weighed in favor of relocation, the court found this factor was neutral.

¶ 78 As to the presence or absence of extended family, the court noted that Diego had a lot of

family in Chicago—Anthony estimated there were more than 50 extended family members in the

area. The court also observed that Diego’s close relationship with his siblings had been “stressed

by several witnesses at trial.” The court found this factor weighed against relocation because while

the court “recognize[d] the benefits of [Diego] spending more time with his maternal grandparents

and [Vanessa’s] other family in Fremont, *** those benefits [were] counter balanced by the close

relationship [Diego had] with his half-siblings and numerous family members he interact[ed] with

regularly and frequently in Chicago.”

¶ 79 In finding that the anticipated impact of relocation on the child weighed against relocation,

the court noted that Anthony had “historically exercised parenting time with Diego four days per

week excluding overnights” (emphasis in original), and that such regular and frequent parenting

time would be diminished if relocation were granted. The court cited the fact that the GAL had

testified that Vanessa “barely” met her burden to show that relocation was in Diego’s best interests.

¶ 80 The court found that its ability to fashion a reasonable allocation of parenting

responsibilities, possible arrangements for the exercise of parenting time appropriate for the

parents’ resources and circumstances, and the minimization of the impairment to the parent-child

- 23 - No. 1-20-1230

relationship weighed against relocation.

¶ 81 The court noted that Diego was not consulted on his wishes. Finally, the trial court

concluded that any other factors were neutral. Specifically, the court rejected the GAL’s

conclusion that Diego’s quality of life would be improved by the move and noted that the GAL’s

concern that the parents lived in high-crime areas was not supported by evidence.

¶ 82 The court concluded by stating:

“[Vanessa] testified credibly that relocation to Fremont would benefit her directly.

[Vanessa] argued that she has a tremendous support system in Fremont. [Vanessa] intends

to live with her parents in her childhood home and her parents testified that they are willing

to provide reliable childcare for [Diego].

While the court finds that relocation to Fremont would likely enhance [Vanessa’s]

quality of life, not all of the anticipated enhancements to [Vanessa’s] quality of life would

necessarily translate into an improvement in [Diego’s] quality of life. Much of the

testimony in support of [Vanessa’s] proposed relocation focused on the support system she

has in Fremont. However, by all accounts, [Diego] is thriving in his current environment.

No competent evidence was introduced that [Vanessa’s] lack of family support in Chicago

has negatively affected [Diego’s] quality of life.

Furthermore, while [Diego] would undoubtedly benefit from spending additional

time with his maternal grandparents in their loving and stable home, these benefits are

outweighed by the benefits [Diego] receives in having a close and healthy relationship with

[Anthony], [Diego’s] three half-siblings, and his extended paternal family members.

Finally, given the regular, frequent, and quality parenting time that [Anthony] currently

exercises with [Diego], it is unlikely that the impairment to the relationship which would

- 24 - No. 1-20-1230

be caused by relocation could be minimized.”

¶ 83 Finding that Vanessa had not met her burden of showing that relocation would be in

Diego’s best interests, the court denied her petition.

¶ 84 E. Vanessa’s Motion to Reconsider

¶ 85 On February 26, 2020, Vanessa moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling. She noted

that the GAL had found both that Diego had a closer relationship with Vanessa than with Anthony

and that the quality of education, neighborhood, and the enhanced employment opportunities for

Vanessa supported relocation. Vanessa also pointed out that the GAL had considered Anthony’s

ability to pay child support to be “questionable” and indeed Anthony was behind on his child

support obligations. Vanessa argued that the trial court’s denial of her petition was against the

manifest weight of the evidence because it failed to consider that Anthony’s motivations for having

the same parenting time with all of his children was not to facilitate their relationships with one

another but “out of convenience *** so that he [could] have a weekend to himself without any of

his children.” In Vanessa’s view, the court had also failed to consider the inconsistency and gaps

in financial support provided by Anthony, who had still not made any payments toward his child

support arrearage.

¶ 86 Vanessa’s motion to reconsider was also based in part on new evidence that Anthony had

“purposely misle[d] [Vanessa], the court, and his own counsel.” Vanessa stated that her

neighborhood school was “underperforming” based on its Illinois report card and that private

school for Diego had not been feasible financially. She alleged that Anthony told her Diego would

be allowed to enroll at Pritzker, “one of the top public schools in Chicago,” under “the ‘sibling

rule,’ which he represented would allow [Diego] entry to the school because [Anthony’s] other

children already attend the school.” Vanessa then quoted the Chicago Public Schools Policy

- 25 - No. 1-20-1230

Manual on the sibling rule, which requires that to be eligible, “the enrolled sibling and the applicant

sibling must reside in the same household.” Vanessa alleged that Diego did not qualify under this

policy because he and his siblings did not reside in the same household. Vanessa stated that when

she requested Diego’s enrollment application, she discovered that Anthony had listed Anthony’s

grandmother’s home as Diego’s residence. Vanessa pointed out that if Anthony had enrolled Diego

under the ‘sibling rule,’ as he had led Vanessa, his counsel, and the GAL, to believe, then it would

not have been necessary to supply his grandmother’s address as an address within the school’s

district. Vanessa alleged that Anthony had committed fraud by falsely stating he lived within the

Pritzker school boundary, and that Anthony’s actions were “willful and wanton in order to give

him an unfair advantage and deprive [Vanessa] of the opportunity to exercise her decision-making

over education and relocate the minor child to” Fremont.

¶ 87 Vanessa also alleged that Anthony no longer exercised the four days per week of parenting

time she had testified he had exercised at trial. He instead saw Diego two days per week plus every

other weekend. In addition, Vanessa alleged that Anthony had “conspired with his family to show

that they frequently [got] together and support[ed] each other,” when in reality the family had only

gathered three times in the several months following the trial. In addition, she claimed that

Anthony had refused parenting time on one of his recent weekends. Vanessa also said that she had

offered to bring Diego to Anthony’s before school on her way to work in the mornings to save on

before-school care and give Anthony more parenting time, but that he had refused the offer.

Vanessa had also asked Anthony to see if his sister Dana—who lived near Pritzker—could pick

Diego up after school one day per week to save on aftercare. Vanessa claimed that, despite his

claim that he had a multitude of helpful relatives living nearby, Anthony had been unable to find

any family member to watch Diego for a few hours after school just one day per week.

- 26 - No. 1-20-1230

¶ 88 Vanessa further alleged that Anthony still did not have a stable residence for Diego since

a fire destroyed his house on November 9, 2019. According to Vanessa, Anthony had not informed

her about the fire, had exercised parenting time with his children at hotels, secured temporary

housing, but had no “clear timeline” for the rebuilding of his home. This new evidence, Vanessa

maintained, showed both that Anthony was not a credible witness and that several of the trial

court’s findings were not supported.

¶ 89 In response, Anthony stated that he “currently reside[d]” in the Pritzker school district,

though he acknowledged that Diego did not live with his siblings. Anthony admitted that he had

written down his grandmother’s address as his own on the school application, but explained that it

was the address he used “for his business.” Anthony denied that he committed fraud or that he

purposely misled anyone about the sibling rule, insisting instead that he had genuinely believed

that the sibling rule applied, but that “[d]ue to [Vanessa’s] continued delays and objections with

enrollment, the sibling rule was not applicable at the time the [p]arties’ [sic] enrolled [Diego] in

school.” Anthony also argued that Vanessa “had an opportunity to investigate [Anthony’s] beliefs

and/or assertions” before the relocation trial but had not done so. “[T]o the best of his recollection,”

Anthony “believe[d] [Vanessa] signed off on the enrollment application.”

¶ 90 Anthony also denied that he had not seen Diego as frequently following the trial, alleged

that his family had continued to gather frequently, denied that Vanessa offered to bring him Diego

in the mornings and he refused, and denied that Vanessa repeatedly asked him to find someone to

pick Diego up from school one day per week and he was unable to.

¶ 91 After hearing argument, on October 14, 2020, the trial court issued an order denying the

motion to reconsider. The court did not explain its reasoning in the order or on the record.

- 27 - No. 1-20-1230

¶ 92 II. JURISDICTION

¶ 93 Vanessa timely filed her notice of appeal from the trial court’s orders denying her petition

to relocate and her motion to reconsider on November 12, 2020. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) and Rule 303 (eff. July 1, 2017), governing

appeals from final judgments entered by the circuit court in civil cases.

¶ 94 III. ANALYSIS

¶ 95 On appeal, Vanessa argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to relocate Diego

to Fremont, California. The overriding consideration on a petition for relocation is the best interests

of the child. In re Marriage of Fatkin, 2019 IL 123602, ¶ 32. Our supreme court has made clear

that “a best interests determination cannot be reduced to a simple bright-line test and that a ruling

on the best interests of a child must be made on a case-by-case basis, depending, to a great extent,

upon the circumstances of each case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. “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.”

In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316, 328 (1988).

¶ 96 When a parent files a petition to relocate with a minor and the other parent objects, a court

considers the factors listed in section 609.2(g) of the Act “in accordance with the child’s best

interests.” 750 ILCS 5/609.2(g) (West 2018). These factors include:

“(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;

- 28 - No. 1-20-1230

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

proposed new location;

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

(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.

¶ 97 Prior to the legislature’s enactment of section 609.2 in 2016, in 1988, our supreme court

listed factors that weigh into a child’s best interests, including (1) the likelihood that the move will

“enhance[e] the general quality of life for both the custodial parent and the children,” (2) “the

motives of the custodial parent in seeking the move to determine whether the removal is merely a

ruse intended to defeat or frustrate visitation,” (3) “the motives of the noncustodial parent in

resisting the removal,” (4) “the visitation rights of the noncustodial parent,” and (5) “whether ***

a realistic and reasonable visitation schedule can be reached if the move is allowed.” Eckert, 119

Ill. 2d at 326-27. No one of the Eckert factors is controlling. In re Marriage of Collingbourne, 204

Ill. 2d 498, 523 (2003). Rather, they “are to be considered and balanced by the [trial] court in

- 29 - No. 1-20-1230

arriving at a best interests determination, and the weight to be given to each factor will vary

according to the facts of the case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

¶ 98 While this was a difficult case, mostly because Diego has the benefit of two loving and

involved parents, we find that, here, the trial court’s application of six of the statutory factors—

factors five through seven and nine through eleven—was clearly against the manifest weight of

the evidence. In addition, the court failed to consider fully that, per the parties’ agreement, Vanessa

was designated the primary residential parent and that she had sole decision making responsibility

on all issues other than extracurricular activities. Because of her role, the enhanced quality of life

that she would have in Fremont, and the strong family support that she had there, would directly

benefit Diego. On that basis we find that the trial court erred in denying Vanessa’s motion and in

finding that she failed to show that relocation would be in Diego’s best interests.

¶ 99 The trial court’s findings that factors seven (whether the court will be able to fashion a

reasonable allocation of parental responsibilities between the parents), nine (possible arrangements

for the exercise of parental responsibilities), and ten (minimization of the impairment to the parent-

child relationship) weighed against relocation were clearly against the manifest weight of the

evidence. The court offered little analysis with respect to these factors other than to emphasize that

Anthony would lose the frequent and consistent parenting time that he enjoyed. In this respect, we

note that the trial court focused on Anthony having “historically exercised” parenting time with

Diego “four days per week excluding overnights” (emphasis in original). However, the court

ignored that when Diego started kindergarten, Anthony did not pick Diego up from school and

drop him off at Vanessa on his non-visitation days, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. As was clear in

Anthony’s testimony and in Vanessa’s motion to reconsider, once Diego started school, Anthony

no longer saw Diego the four times per week provided for in the allocation judgment but instead

- 30 - No. 1-20-1230

saw Diego twice a week, on Monday evening for several hours and overnight on Thursday. In

addition, he was entitled to see him on alternate weekends. More significantly, we believe the trial

court overlooked the strong evidence that it would be able to fashion a reasonable allocation and

arrangement for the exercise of parental responsibilities in a way that minimized the impairment

of the relationship between Anthony and Diego.

¶ 100 The GAL was enthusiastically confident that a reasonable allocation of parenting time

could be fashioned, proposing a schedule that gave Anthony the majority of the summer and six

or seven long weekend visits during the school year. Vanessa testified that Diego would have an

iPad to allow him daily communication with Anthony. Vanessa and her parents said both Anthony

and Jackie would be welcome to stay at their home in Fremont on visits, and that between

summers, and weekends and holidays, she would ensure Anthony had the opportunity for at least

the same number of overnights (96 per year) he enjoyed prior to the move. There was no reason to

doubt any of this since even Anthony’s siblings, Dana and Mr. Fuentes, acknowledged that

Vanessa had never done anything to interfere with Diego’s relationship with Anthony. Vanessa’s

father also said he would take Diego to visit Anthony, and both parents said they would do what

they could to facilitate Diego’s relationship with his father.

¶ 101 Anthony and the trial court both focused on the fact that the visitation schedule would be

different than it was when Vanessa lived in Chicago. But as our supreme court has recognized,

“[i]n all instances, removal will have some effect on visitation. The pivotal question is whether a

reasonable and realistic visitation schedule can be created.” Collingbourne, 204 Ill. 2d at 532. The

evidence here can only lead to the conclusion that a reasonable and realistic visitation schedule

could be created, the parental responsibilities, which already placed Vanessa fully in charge of all

decisions other than extracurricular activities, could be reasonably allocated, and any impairment

- 31 - No. 1-20-1230

to the relationship between Diego and Anthony would be minimized, weighing in favor of

relocation.

¶ 102 The trial court also found that the fifth factor, the presence or absence of extended family,

weighed against relocation, but the evidence here was clearly to the contrary when it came to

Diego’s best interests. The court noted that Vanessa, who had extended family in Fremont, but

found this to be outweighed by Anthony’s testimony that he had 50 family members in the area

and that Diego had relationships with his half-siblings. Vanessa testified that, in taking care of

Diego, she had minimal help from Anthony’s family. This was supported by Vanessa’s parents

who testified that they flew in from California to care for Diego when his daycare was closed. In

Fremont, Vanessa’s retired father would be available to take care of Diego every day, eliminating

the need for before- and after-school care. It was undisputed that Vanessa had primary

responsibility for Diego and she clearly needed help and support. The evidence was overwhelming

that such support was far more available from Vanessa’s extended family in Fremont than it was

from Anthony’s family in Chicago. It was against the manifest weight of this evidence for the trial

court to conclude that this factor weighed against relocation.

¶ 103 The trial court’s conclusion that the sixth factor, the anticipated impact of relocation on

Diego, weighed in favor of denying relocation was also against the manifest weight of the

evidence. The trial court ignored the finding of the GAL—who had 36 years of experience and

actually observed Diego with his siblings and with each of his parents and considered the

relationship Diego had with both Vanessa and Anthony. The GAL concluded that he did “not

foresee any substantial adverse impact” on Diego.

¶ 104 Finally, the trial court’s determination that any other relevant factors was neutral was

against the manifest weight of the evidence because the court largely disregarded the benefits

- 32 - No. 1-20-1230

Diego would receive from the overall improved quality of life in Fremont for Diego and for

Vanessa who was the primary residential parent. The trial court concluded that “not all of the

anticipated enhancements” would improve Diego’s quality of life because “[n]o competent

evidence was introduced that [Vanessa’s] lack of family support in Chicago has negatively affected

[Diego’s] quality of life.” However, this conclusion is at odds with our supreme court’s recognition

in Collingbourne that the life of a child and his custodial parent are intertwined. The court stated:

“[I]n conducting a best interests inquiry in the context of a removal petition, a [trial] court

must consider the proposed move in terms of likelihood for enhancing the general quality

of life for both the custodial parent and the [child]. (Emphases added.) [Citations.] Indeed,

[i]f only the direct benefits that affected children were considered, rarely would a situation

arise where removal would be permitted where children were in a good environment with

good schools, good parents, and good friends. [Citation.] The vast majority of cases from

our appellate court have correctly interpreted our decision in Eckert and, in determining

the best interests of the child in removal actions, have appropriately considered the

potential for the move for increasing the general quality of life for both the custodial parent

and the child, including any benefit the child may experience stemming from the parent’s

life enhancement. [Citations.] It follows that what is in the best interests of the child cannot

be considered without assessing the best interests of the other members of the household

in which the child resides, most particularly the custodial parent.” (Internal quotation marks

omitted.) Id. at 525-26.

The supreme court in Collingbourne also noted that “our society is a mobile one,” and it has only

become more so since that case was decided in 2003. The court then said:

“since a court has no power to require the noncustodial parent to remain in Illinois, or to

- 33 - No. 1-20-1230

require members of the extended family to remain in Illinois, some deference is due to the

custodial parent who has already determined the best interests of her child [ ] and herself

are served by remarriage and removal. The best interests of children cannot be fully

understood without also considering the best interests of the custodial parent.” (Emphasis

in original and internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 528.

¶ 105 Like the mother in Collingbourne, Vanessa has largely “had to deal with all the day-to-day

issues a single parent must face, including the child’s physical and emotional well-being, the

child’s school performance, and the care of the child when he is not in school and [she] cannot be

with him.” Id. at 426-27. Unlike the mother in Collingbourne, Vanessa is relocating to live with

her parents, not with a new spouse, but the important point is that she is relocating to where she

will have a strong support system and constant help with Diego.

¶ 106 We find guidance and further support for our determination from this court’s decision in

Ford v. Marteness, 368 Ill. App. 3d (2006). In Ford, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s

denial of the mother’s petition to remove the minor child to Colorado. Id. at 176. In doing so, this

court found that the trial court “understated” the “prospects for enhancements” to the child’s life.

Id. at 177. The court observed that “the child w[ould] experience benefits with the increase in his

mother’s quality of life,” including economic security and living with the mother’s husband who

had been active in the child’s life. Similarly, here, Vanessa’s move to Fremont would increase her

and Diego’s economic security as they would be living with her parents until she was settled rather

than in an apartment with her friend, and Diego would be spending time with his grandparents who

have helped care for him instead of going to before- and after-school care three to five days per

week.

¶ 107 Our conclusion is strengthened by Vanessa’s motion for reconsideration which the court

- 34 - No. 1-20-1230

appears to have denied without an evidentiary hearing. Anthony did not dispute, as Vanessa

claimed in her motion, that the sibling rule did not actually allow Diego to attend Pritzker and that

his admission is at risk if that is discovered. If Diego were to lose the right to attend Pritzker,

obviously the contrast in educational opportunities for him in Fremont and in Chicago would be

vast. This risk, which the trial court never acknowledged, confirms our conclusion that the move

was in Diego’s best interests. Moreover, in that motion and in her emergency motion to suspend

overnights which she incorporated by reference, Vanessa alleged that Anthony moved out of his

home because of a fire without communicating with her. Moreover, as Vanessa made clear in that

motion to reconsider, Anthony still owes her retroactive child support. This confirms Vanessa’s

testimony that Diego is in need of support from her family in order to achieve the stability that she

is clearly struggling to give him. All of this confirms that the denial of the motion was not in

Diego’s best interests.

¶ 108 IV. CONCLUSION

¶ 109 As we recognized in Ford, “[r]emoval cases are difficult. This is especially so when neither

parent demonstrates bad faith,” and that “[n]o matter the outcome, one party’s life will likely be

affected detrimentally.” Id. at 176, 180. We do not make our decision in this case lightly. But

considering all the evidence, we find the trial court’s denial of Vanessa’s petition to relocate Diego

to Fremont, California, was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we reverse

that decision and remand to the trial court for further proceedings, including the fashioning of a

parenting schedule consistent with this order and the GAL’s recommendations.

¶ 110 Reversed and remanded.

- 35 -