In re Marriage of Ballegeer

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Parentage of R.M.F

    275 Ill. App. 3d 43 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that "[b]ecause the Parentage Act contains no provisions requiring that actions for removal be resolved pursuant to section 609 of the Marriage Act, we find that section 609 of the Marriage Act is not implicitly incorporated into the Parentage Act"

    The court would then be required to proceed to examine the second prong of the statute. We recognize that in In re Marriage of Ballegeer (1992), 236 Ill. App.3d 941, 945, the court held that the removal of a minor child from the State would not be sufficient to satisfy the first prong of section 610. However, that case involved a petition brought by the custodial parent pursuant to section 609 as well as a petition for modification of custody brought by the noncustodial parent pursuant to section 610.

  2. In re Marriage of Lange v. Lange

    307 Ill. App. 3d 303 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 8 times

    In Kitchen, nobody tried to invoke the jurisdiction of a Nebraska court, and here nobody tried to invoke the jurisdiction of an Indiana or Texas court. See also In re Marriage of Ballegeer, 236 Ill. App.3d 941, 942, 602 N.E.2d 852, 853 (1992) (at the time of the agreed order allowing removal of the children from Illinois to Iowa, the parties agreed that jurisdiction would remain with the courts in Illinois). Finally, if all else fails, the parties have revested the trial court with jurisdiction.

  3. Reed v. Lamb (In re Parentage of T.R.)

    2017 Ill. App. 4th 170114 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    "A custodian's petition for removal and a noncustodian's petition to change custody must be decided under different sections of the Act, and there is potential for confusion if the two petitions are ruled upon at the same time. In [In re Marriage of] Ballegeer, [236 Ill. App. 3d 941, 945, 602 N.E.2d 852, 855 (1992)], for example, the trial court granted a change of custody without considering the petition for leave to remove. Even if the petition for leave to remove would have been denied, the custodian had the right to decide to remain in the State and retain custody.

  4. In re Marriage of Eaton

    269 Ill. App. 3d 507 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)   Cited 29 times
    Stating the custodial parent seeking to remove children from Illinois has the burden of proving the move is in the children's best interests

    The judge stated, however, this did not convince him the move would improve the quality of life of the children. ( Cf. In re Marriage of Ballegeer (1992), 236 Ill. App.3d 941, 945, 602 N.E.2d 852, 855.) The trial judge found the school systems available in Florida and Quincy were essentially equal to one another.

  5. In re Marriage of Creedon

    245 Ill. App. 3d 531 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 11 times

    It is not always necessary, on a petition for leave to remove, to show some direct benefit to the children. ( Carlson, 216 Ill. App. 3 d at 1081, 576 N.E.2d at 580; In re Marriage of Ballegeer (1992), 236 Ill. App.3d 941, 945, 602 N.E.2d 852, 855; In re Marriage of Miroballi (1991), 225 Ill. App.3d 1094, 1098, 589 N.E.2d 565, 568.) "[I]f the best interests of the children would not be affected by a move to another State, the custodial parent should be free to move."