Standard of Review

Standard of Review

   Where the evidence before the trial court did not clearly favor either party, the reviewing court could not say that the trial court’s decision to place permanent custody of the child with one of the parents was against the manifest weight of the evidence.  Prince v. Herrera
Where, in prior order, the court clearly stated its position that custody of the minor child was yet to be determined, it was futile to argue that that order should be deemed a custody determination in favor of the mother; accordingly an order granting permanent custody of minor to his father was the initial custody determination, and did not involve the standards and requirements for modification, as contended by mother; being an initial determination of custody, the trial court correctly relied on the “best interest” standard as provided by law.  In re Koca
   A trial court’s custody decision will not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion or the decision was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.  In re Willis
   In cases regarding custody, there is a strong and compelling presumption in favor of the result reached by the trial court.  In re Willis
   A reviewing court will not overturn a determination of custody unless the trial court’s decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence or exhibits a clear abuse of discretion since the trial court, having had a superior opportunity to observe the witnesses, evaluate the evidence and consider the needs of the child, is in a better position than a reviewing court to determine just what that best interest is.  In re Quindry
   A reviewing court will not disturb the trial court’s determination of credibility because the trial court has a superior vantage point, which cannot be reproduced from the old record, to observe and judge the witnesses’ demeanor and credibility; the trial court is therefore in a better position to evaluate the credibility, temperaments, personalities, and capabilities of both parents.  In re Diehl
   The trial court’s determination of custody will not be disturbed upon review unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence, manifestly unjust or there has been a clear abuse of discretion.  In re Diehl
   The trial court has broad discretion in making a custody determination; however, its discretion is not unlimited, and when the award is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, it is the duty of the reviewing court to reverse that decision.  In re Bush
   In cases involving custody, a strong and compelling presumption exists in favor of the result reached by the trial court.  Hollo v. Holo 
   Only where the custody award is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence will it be reversed.  In re Yakin
   Although the original custody judgment had resulted from an agreement of the parties and the trial court had not heard evidence concerning the child’s best interest, the reviewing court would not hear all the evidence do nove when one party subsequently petitioned for modification.  In re Gargus
   As the trial court is in a superior position to determine the best interests, that determination will not be disturbed on review unless it is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence or represents an abuse of discretion.  Kjellesvik v. Shannon

Stipulated Awards
   Child custody awards stipulated by the parents may be granted by the court under this section.  In re Ayers

Substance Abuse
   Where the custodial parent’s involvement with alcohol resulted in numerous incidents which were viewed by third parties, was serious enough to impair her ability to function as a physician and endangered the life of her son, the trial court’s decision to transfer custody to the father was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.  In re Neeld
   It would be error for the trial court to exclude evidence of petitioner’s alleged alcohol and drug abuse, particularly with regard to the impact such activity would have upon the children, if the custodial parent’s consumption of alcohol and drugs can be shown to affect that parent’s mental or physical health and that and that parent’s relationship with the children.  In re Rizzo

Temporary Custody

___Prejudicial Effect
   A court may consider the period of time that a child has spent with a parent by virtue of a temporary custody order but there is no presumption in favor of the existing custodian under this section as there is in modification cases under 750 ILCS 5/610.  In re Hefer

Back to 750 ILCS 5/602 Home Page