In re Marriage of Ricketts

66 Citing cases

  1. Jerry S. v. Meagan B.

    2018 Ill. App. 3d 170854 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    In support of his position on appeal, Jerry cites to several cases involving a pattern of alienating behavior by the mother of a child, which resulted in the trial court eventually allocating the majority of parenting time (sole custody) to the father. See In re Marriage of Ricketts, 329 Ill. App. 3d 173, 177-82 (2002); In re Marriage of Debra N. & Michael S., 2013 IL App (1st) 122145, ¶¶ 42-56; In re Marriage of D.T.W. & S.L.W., 2011 IL App (1st) 111225, ¶¶ 81-105. For all of the reasons stated, Jerry asks that we reverse the trial court's judgment and that we remand this case for a limited purpose—for the trial court to determine a parenting time schedule. ¶ 43 Meagan argues that the trial court's ruling was proper and should be upheld.

  2. Scott v. Paulsen (In re Parentage of L.S.)

    2015 Ill. App. 2d 150314 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    " 'A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence when the opposite conclusion is apparent or when the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based upon the evidence.' " In re Marriage of Lonvick, 2013 IL App (2d) 120865, ¶ 33 (quoting In re Marriage of Ricketts, 329 Ill. App. 3d 173, 181-82 (2002)). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to Kathryn as the appellee.

  3. Lonvick v. Counter

    2013 Ill. App. 2d 120865 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 44 times

    We will not disturb a custody determination unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Marriage of Ricketts, 329 Ill.App.3d 173, 181, 263 Ill.Dec. 753, 768 N.E.2d 834 (2002). “A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence when the opposite conclusion is apparent or when the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based upon the evidence.”

  4. Gaines v. Gaines (In re Marriage of Gaines)

    2017 Ill. App. 5th 160434 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee." In re Marriage of Ricketts, 329 Ill. App. 3d 173, 177 (2002). "We will affirm the trial court's ruling if there is any basis to support the trial court's findings.

  5. Klaasen v. Klaasen

    2016 Ill. App. 4th 160033 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    ¶ 38 "Stability for a child is a major consideration with both an initial award of custody and with a modification of custody ***." In re Marriage of Ricketts, 329 Ill. App. 3d 173, 180, 768 N.E.2d 834, 839 (2002).¶ 39 The triplets' have meaningful involvement within the community of Manito.

  6. Stone v. Pellegrini-Stone

    2014 Ill. App. 3d 130977 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)

    In re Marriage of Lonvick, 2013 IL App (2d) 120865, ¶ 33. "A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence when the opposite conclusion is apparent or when the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based upon the evidence." In re Marriage of Ricketts, 329 Ill. App. 3d 173, 181-82 (2002). ¶ 52 In determining custody, the primary consideration is the best interests and welfare of the children involved.

  7. In re Romano

    2012 Ill. App. 2d 91339 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 31 times
    Finding that under the circumstances, a 23% / 77% division of marital property was not an abuse of discretion

    In re Marriage of Hluska, 2011 IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 76, 356 Ill.Dec. 612, 961 N.E.2d 1247;Henke, 313 Ill.App.3d at 166, 245 Ill.Dec. 780, 728 N.E.2d 1137. A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or when the court's findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based upon the evidence. In re Marriage of Ricketts, 329 Ill.App.3d 173, 181–82, 263 Ill.Dec. 753, 768 N.E.2d 834 (2002). ¶ 45 Under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq. (West 2008)), there is a rebuttable presumption that all property acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before a judgment of dissolution of marriage is marital property regardless of how title to the property is held. 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(1) (West 2008); In re Marriage of Schmitt, 391 Ill.App.3d 1010, 1017, 330 Ill.Dec. 508, 909 N.E.2d 221 (2009).

  8. Romano v. Romano

    2012 Ill. App. 2d 91339 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)

    A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or when the court's findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based upon the evidence. In re Marriage of Ricketts, 329 Ill. App. 3d 173, 181-82 (2002). ¶ 45 Under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq. (West 2008)), there is a rebuttable presumption that all property acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before a judgment of dissolution of marriage is marital property regardless of how title to the property is held. 750 ILCS 503(b)(1) (West 2008); In re Marriage of Schmitt, 391 Ill. App. 3d 1010, 1017 (2009).

  9. Romano v. Romano

    2012 Ill. App. 2d 91339 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)

    A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or when the court's findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based upon the evidence. In re Marriage of Ricketts, 329 Ill. App. 3d 173, 181-82 (2002). ¶ 45 Under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq. (West 2008)), there is a rebuttable presumption that all property acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before a judgment of dissolution of marriage is marital property regardless of how title to the property is held. 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(1) (West 2008); In re Marriage of Schmitt, 391 Ill. App. 3d 1010, 1017 (2009).

  10. Butler v. Butler

    859 A.2d 26 (Conn. 2004)   Cited 5 times
    Approving of a trial court's use of “the demeanor of the parties” in its determination “that it was in the best interests of the children to award sole custody to the [father]”

    An agreement to terminate joint custody is manifested by a stipulation or cross petitions for sole custody. See In re Marriage of Spent, 342 Ill. App. 3d 643, 651, 796 N.E.2d 191, appeal denied, 206 Ill. 2d 645, 806 N.E.2d 1073 (2003); In re Marriage of Ricketts, 329 Ill. App. 3d 173, 178, 768 N.E.2d 834 (2002). Because both parties in the present case sought sole custody; see footnote 3 of this opinion; they implicitly had agreed to terminate joint custody.