Chicago Divorce Lawyers & Attorneys

Great discretion is vested in the trial court on issues of custody due to the judge’s superior opportunity to evaluate the evidence and determine the best interests of the child. In re Simmons.
In cases regarding custody issues, there is a strong and compelling presumption in favor of the result reached by the trial court; the result will be reversed only if it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Simmons.
Where respondent never alleged that neighbor was unfit to care for the children, there was nothing in the record to support any inference that she should not retain custody; thus, in awarding temporary custody to her, the court did not abuse its discretion. Milenkovic v. Milenkov.
In post-decree proceedings for the modification of child custody provisions of divorce decree, the discretion of the trial court is a judicial discretion limited to the pleadings and proof pertaining to a change in circumstances which affect the welfare of the child, sufficient to warrant the modification of the decree. King v. Vancil.
Where the court has stated that the welfare and best interests of the children require that the children remain in the custody of the respondent, it must be presumed that the court heard sufficient evidence of the change of circumstances upon which to base its finding and that it was for the best interests of the children that the respondent should be granted custody. People ex rel. Brown v. Walls.
The trial court in divorce proceedings is vested with a broad discretion in determining the custody of minor children. Wolfrum v. Wolfrum