IICLE Family Law Flash Points - August 2023

Trial Court’s Granting of Relocation from Illinois to Colorado Upheld

In Kenney, supra, the husband appealed the trial court’s granting of the wife’s petition to relocate their twins from Illinois to Colorado. The husband argued, in addition to the argument that the court misapplied the relocation factors, that the wife had failed to comport with the notice requirement under the IMDMA. The appellate court did not find error with the trial court’s reasoning that the notice requirement did not apply because the children were constantly being moved from Illinois to Colorado and the husband knew the wife was taking the twins to stay in Colorado on the day she left and there was no particular planned date for their return. The evidence suggested that the wife herself may not have known that she intended to permanently relocate to Colorado until a month or two later. The children had a better support system and healthier environment with their maternal grandparents in Colorado, the wife had a deeper history and quality relationship with the children, and it was uncontested she was their primary caregiver. It was not error for the GAL and experts not to investigate schools in Colorado as the children were not school age at the time of trial; the trial court did hear direct testimony from the Colorado school director regarding potential educational opportunities in Colorado. The children’s extremely close relationship with the wife’s parents and the fact that they were intimately involved in their lives, including being back-up childcare when the wife had to work, also weighed in the wife’s favor. The appellate court held the trial court did not just engage in an analysis of “which party ‘won’ the most factors,” but considered all of the factors and weighed them appropriately. 2023 IL App (1st) 221558 at ¶65. Its decision to grant relocation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 2023 IL App (1st) 221558 at ¶62.

Husband’s Suit Against Wife’s Boyfriend for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Allowed To Move Forward

After learning that his wife was having an affair, the husband embarked on a surveillance campaign in which he had the wife and her boyfriend under surveillance for 12 hours per day for three years at a cost of $1.295 million. Kornick v. Goodman, 2023 IL App (2d) 220197. For purposes of this case, the husband sued the boyfriend for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging he had sustained severe emotional distress after viewing “vile and vulgar” text messages that the boyfriend had sent the couple’s 13-year-old son, who had autism. 2023 IL App (2d) 220197 at ¶5. The boyfriend brought a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The husband appealed, and the appellate court reversed. The appellate court’s opinion turned on the second prong of the required elements for tortious interference: the defendant either intended that his conduct should inflict severe emotional distress or knew that there was a high probability that his conduct would cause severe emotional distress. Based on current caselaw, a plaintiff may maintain a cause of action even if the alleged outrageous conduct was not directed specifically at the plaintiff, and therefore whether the facts were sufficiently egregious to warrant damages was for the trier of fact to resolve. The ultimate question of fact was whether the boyfriend should have known that vile and disturbing text messages sent to the husband’s 13-year-old son would be seen by the husband and cause him emotional distress.