Link for opinion: http://www.isba.org/cases/illinois/appellate/2012/10/17/grunstadvcooper
In the case of Grunstad v. Cooper, 2012 IL App (3d) 120524, the father filed a petition for primary physical custody of his two children Olyvia and Keegan. The mother, Grunstad, had primary physical custody of them. The reasons for the change was because he thought that she did not provide a stable home by exposing the children to domestic violence and she did not meet the children’s educational and medical needs.
A hearing Grunstad testified about the possible domestic violence exposure to the children and witnesses from both parties testified about the children’s welfare. Coopers witnesses included a teacher and a social worker from the school. Attorneys for both parties brought up their past history of drinking alcohol which both sides denied. It came out that both parties had difficulty communicating with each other.
On November 23, 2011, the circuit court ruled in favor of Grunstad based on the evidence presented. Cooper filed a motion for a camera interview to be done of his daughter and it was denied. Cooper appealed.
The Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court decision. It found in the matter of the camera interview not being allowed to agree with the circuit court decision based on Section 604(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act because the court can use its discretion in deciding this matter. The court ruled that the daughter’s opinion was not the only factor to consider and would have “emotional impact” on her even though she wanted to live with her father. As far as Cooper’s argument that the decision for granting Grunstad a direct verdict, after analyzing the evidence presented by Cooper the court found he failed show there was a need to change the custody arraignment. This case shows the how law tends to not change rulings of previous decisions in custody cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment