Additionally, the court properly considered the indirect benefits to Adam which would result from Vicki establishing a new and successful marriage relationship. ( In re Marriage of Carlson (1991), 216 Ill. App.3d 1077, 576 N.E.2d 578; In re Marriage of Taylor (1990), 202 Ill. App.3d 740, 559 N.E.2d 1150.) This would enhance her quality of life significantly and in that way would indirectly enhance the child's quality of life.
To the contrary, the court there reasoned that given the length of the summer visits, the child would spend even more time with siblings and friends. We reached the same result in In re Marriage of Taylor (1990), 202 Ill. App.3d 740, 559 N.E.2d 1150, and In re Marriage of Carlson (1991), 216 Ill. App.3d 1077, 576 N.E.2d 578. In Taylor, we concluded that where a move significantly enhances the general quality of life for the wife, the custodial parent, it therefore indirectly beneficially affects the child's quality of life.
See, e.g., In re Marriage of Shaddle, 317 Ill. App. 3d 428, 434 (2000); Ludwinski, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 499; In re Marriage of Miroballi, 225 Ill. App. 3d 1094, 1098 (1991); In re Marriage of Carlson, 216 Ill. App. 3d 1077, 1081 (1991); In re Marriage of Roppo, 225 Ill. App. 3d 721, 728 (1991); In re Marriage of Taylor, 202 Ill. App. 3d 740, 745 (1990); In re Marriage of Zamarripa-Gesundheit, 175 Ill. App. 3d 184, 189 (1988). 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.
¶ 39 Indeed, there is a difference between a custody award under section 602 and removal under section 609. In re Marriage of Taylor, 202 Ill. App. 3d 740, 744, 559 N.E.2d 1150, 1154 (1990) ("[a] judge is required to hear two different types of evidence and must be careful not to allow evidence proper for one petition to impact upon the decision as to the other petition"). "
Whatever other remedies respondent may have, however, it is clear that petitions for leave to remove are governed by section 609 of the Act, despite the fact that joint custody has been agreed to or awarded. ( In re Marriage of Yndestad (1992), 232 Ill. App.3d 1, 7, 597 N.E.2d 215, 219; In re Marriage of Taylor (1990), 202 Ill. App.3d 740, 744, 559 N.E.2d 1150, 1152.) Still, to the extent that an order of joint custody actually reflects a closer than customary relationship between the noncustodian and the child, the existence of a joint custody order may be considered in determining whether removal is in a child's best interests.
This court has consistently recognized that where the general quality of life for the custodial parent is enhanced the child's quality of life is indirectly enhanced. In re Marriage of Carlson (1991), 216 Ill. App.3d 1077, 1081; In re Marriage of Taylor (1990), 202 Ill. App.3d 740, 745; In re Marriage of Zamarripa-Gesundheit (1988), 175 Ill. App.3d 184, 189; In re Custody of Arquilla (1980), 85 Ill. App.3d 1090, 1093. Having acknowledged that petitioner will be happier by moving, it is reasonable to conclude that the children's lives will be indirectly enhanced.
On appeal, Vicki initially argues that the trial court erred in conducting a joint evidentiary hearing on the two petitions and ruling on Loren's petition to modify before ruling on Vicki's petition to remove. In support of her position, Vicki relies on In re Marriage of Taylor (1990), 202 Ill. App.3d 740, 559 N.E.2d 1150. In Taylor, the father's petition for a change in physical custody was predicated upon the mother's anticipated move to Virginia.
However, it is necessary to also consider indirect benefits to the children from the proposed move. The present case is similar to In re Marriage of Taylor (1990), 202 Ill. App.3d 740, 559 N.E.2d 1150. In that case a mother wished to move from Illinois to Virginia to be near her new husband, who was in the United States Navy, and whose ship was based at Norfolk, Virginia.
We are unaware of how Karen gained this insight and furthermore note that this court based its decision on the evidence present in the record, not on a secret motivation of one of the parties. Karen also cites In re Marriage of Taylor (1990), 202 Ill. App.3d 740, and In re Marriage of Zamarripa-Gesundheit (1988), 175 Ill. App.3d 184, two cases which do rely to a great extent on the reasoning that a positive effect on the custodial parent's quality of life, which indirectly enhances the children's quality of life, is enough to prove the move to be in the child's best interest. For example, in Zamarripa-Gesundheit, the court stated: