Its effect is to create a legislative presumption in favor of the present custodian, thereby promoting the stability and continuity of the child's custodial and environmental relationship which is not to be overturned lightly. ( In re Custody of Harne (1979), 77 Ill.2d 414, 420-21; Kraft v. Kraft (1982), 108 Ill. App.3d 590, 596; In re Marriage of Hill (1982), 105 Ill. App.3d 473, 479; In re Marriage of Padiak (1981), 101 Ill. App.3d 306, 311-12; In re Marriage of Gebis (1981), 100 Ill. App.3d 710, 712.) However, once the trial court has determined that the presumption has been overcome, the court of review will not disturb that determination on appeal unless the trial court's decision was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence or amounted to an abuse of discretion.
¶ 35 We are not persuaded otherwise by mother's reliance on several Illinois cases in support of her argument. See In re Marriage of Wechselberger , 115 Ill.App.3d 779, 71 Ill.Dec. 506, 450 N.E.2d 1385, 1391 (1983) ; In re Marriage of Hill , 105 Ill.App.3d 473, 61 Ill.Dec. 374, 434 N.E.2d 527, 531 (1982) ; People ex rel. Bukovic v. Smith , 98 Ill.App.3d 144, 53 Ill.Dec. 498, 423 N.E.2d 1302, 1307-08 (1981) ; see also In re Custody of Dykhuis , 131 Ill.App.3d 371, 86 Ill.Dec. 728, 475 N.E.2d 1107, 1110 (1985). ¶ 36