Page 46 - February 2016

FAMILY LAW
Removal 101

know what, if anything, could be done if his ex-wife
Removal is most likely an issue that many divorcing police officers have had serious concerns about. Divorced officers subject to residency requirements struggle to balance the need to be close to their chil- dren with their job’s residency restrictions.
includes but is not limited to providing information about potential living conditions, school systems and any emotional/familial support the child will have the benefit of if they left the state of Illinois.
Additionally, the court is barred from using the availability of elec- tronic communication, such as Skype or Facetime, as a factor in sup- port of removal of a child by the custodial parent. 750 ILCS 5/609(c).
Exceptions to the rule exist if removal was expressly permitted by the joint parenting agreement. In the case of In re Marriage of Coulter, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a mother could remove her child to California, despite objections from her ex-husband, because removal was expressly allowed in the couples’ joint parenting agree- ment. The court held that a joint parenting agreement is an enforce- able contract between the parties and the court would give effect to the intention of the parties as determined by the agreement’s plain language. However, even if a removal clause is included in the parties’ joint parenting agreement, the court may not enforce the removal clause if the court believes it is not in the best interest of the children.
The takeaway for my client and for the rest of divorced police offi- cers with concerns that their ex-spouse will decide to remove the chil- dren is that removal is not an issue to be glossed over or taken lightly during the divorce process. The courts clearly recognize the impor- tance of both parents being present and playing active roles in the lives of their minor children, and as a result any removal of a child is taken extremely seriously. Officers considering divorce should be aware that the custodial parent may decide to move in the future and this fact should not be overlooked in divorce proceedings, especially where officers are subject to job-related residency requirements. d
Recently I had a conversation with one of my clients about the next steps after his divorce was com-

to Chicago’s residency requirement, and my client
pleted. My client was a Chicago Police Officer, subject

had concerns about what would happen if his ex-wife

decided in the future that she wanted to relocate with

their children. As the non-custodial parent granted

with significant parenting time, my client wanted to

suddenly decided to move across the country. How would he see his

children regularly and fulfill his job’s residency requirement? Would

it be possible to use the court system to prevent her from leaving?

not be taken out of the state before a formal removal hearing was held. Under Illino is law, Section 5/609(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolutio n o f Marriage A ct titled, “Leave to Remove Children:”
Fortunately, the first thing I told my client is that his children could

“The court may grant leave, before or after judgment, to any party having custody of any minor child or children to remove such child

or children from Illinois whenever such approval is in the best inter-

ests of such child or children. The burden of proving that such

removal is in the best interests of such child or children is on the party

seeking the removal. When such removal is permitted, the court may

require the party removing such child or children from Illinois to give

reasonable security guaranteeing the return of such children.”
Rachel Johnson graduated DePaul University College of Law with a certificate in

The burden is on the parent seeking removal to demonstrate to the
family law, and has been working in the field of domestic relations for several
court that such a move would be in the child’s best interest; this
years. She is an associate with the law offices of Daniel Q. Herbert and Associates.
46 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ FEBRUARY 2016
4

RACHEL JOHNSON