ILCS » Chapter 750 · Act 5

750 ILCS 5/602.5

Allocation of parental responsibilities: decision-making

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(750 ILCS 5/602.5)
    Sec. 602.5. Allocation of parental responsibilities: decision-making.
    (a) Generally. The court shall allocate decision-making responsibilities according to the child's best interests. Nothing in this Act requires that each parent be allocated decision-making responsibilities.
    (b) Allocation of significant decision-making responsibilities. Unless the parents otherwise agree in writing on an allocation of significant decision-making responsibilities, or the issue of the allocation of parental responsibilities has been reserved under Section 401, the court shall make the determination. The court shall allocate to one or both of the parents the significant decision-making responsibility for each significant issue affecting the child. Those significant issues shall include, without limitation, the following:
        (1) Education, including the choice of schools and
    
tutors.
        (2) Health, including all decisions relating to the
    
medical, dental, and psychological needs of the child and to the treatments arising or resulting from those needs.
        (3) Religion, subject to the following provisions:
            (A) The court shall allocate decision-making
        
responsibility for the child's religious upbringing in accordance with any express or implied agreement between the parents.
            (B) The court shall consider evidence of the
        
parents' past conduct as to the child's religious upbringing in allocating decision-making responsibilities consistent with demonstrated past conduct in the absence of an express or implied agreement between the parents.
            (C) The court shall not allocate any aspect of
        
the child's religious upbringing if it determines that the parents do not or did not have an express or implied agreement for such religious upbringing or that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a course of conduct regarding the child's religious upbringing that could serve as a basis for any such order.
        (4) Extracurricular activities.
    (c) Determination of child's best interests. In determining the child's best interests for purposes of allocating significant decision-making responsibilities, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, without limitation, the following:
        (1) the wishes of the child, taking into account the
    
child's maturity and ability to express reasoned and independent preferences as to decision-making;
        (2) the child's adjustment to his or her home,
    
school, and community;
        (3) the mental and physical health of all individuals
    
involved;
        (4) the ability of the parents to cooperate to make
    
decisions, or the level of conflict between the parties that may affect their ability to share decision-making;
        (5) the level of each parent's participation in past
    
significant decision-making with respect to the child;
        (6) any prior agreement or course of conduct between
    
the parents relating to decision-making with respect to the child;
        (7) the wishes of the parents;
        (8) the child's needs;
        (9) the distance between the parents' residences, the
    
cost and difficulty of transporting the child, each parent's and the child's daily schedules, and the ability of the parents to cooperate in the arrangement;
        (10) whether a restriction on decision-making is
    
appropriate under Section 603.10;
        (11) the willingness and ability of each parent to
    
facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child;
        (12) the physical violence or threat of physical
    
violence by the child's parent directed against the child;
        (13) the occurrence of abuse against the child or
    
other member of the child's household;
        (14) whether one of the parents is a sex offender,
    
and if so, the exact nature of the offense and what, if any, treatment in which the parent has successfully participated; and
        (15) any other factor that the court expressly finds
    
to be relevant.
    (d) A parent shall have sole responsibility for making routine decisions with respect to the child and for emergency decisions affecting the child's health and safety during that parent's parenting time.
    (e) In allocating significant decision-making responsibilities, the court shall not consider conduct of a parent that does not affect that parent's relationship to the child.
(Source: P.A. 99-90, eff. 1-1-16.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81 cases (62 in the last 5 years), 2016–2026 · leading case: In re Custody of G.L.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Custody of G.L. (2017) illappct · cites it 5× “See 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c) (West Supp. 2015). Ten factors in the subsections are identical.”
Jameson v. Williams (2020) illappct · cites it 2× “” 750 ILCS 5/602.5(a) (West 2018). In arriving at that decision, the court must consider all relevant factors, including: 16 “(1) the wishes of the child, taking into account the child’s maturity and ability to express reasoned and independent preferences as to decision-making;…”
Young v. Herman (2018) illappct · cites it 2× “This Case ¶ 66 Kourtney raises multiple arguments in support of her contention that the trial court's allocation of decision-making responsibilities was against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
In re Marriage of Katsap (2022) illappct · cites it 2× “6 The parties have clarified that the escrow is related to the surrogacy undertaking rather than the embryos.”
In re Oliver B. (2016) illappct · cites it 2× “1, 2016) (adding 750 ILCS 5/602.5)). That law took effect on January 1, 2016, after this appeal was filed, but before either party had filed a brief.”
In re Custody of G.L. (2017) illappct · cites it 2× “She argues that Gould’s testimony regarding education was speculative and irrelevant to the court’s best interest determinations.”
Young v. Herman (2018) illappct · cites it 2× “Although the Dissolution Act now refers to “decision-making responsibilities” instead of “custody” (750 ILCS 5/602.5 (West 2016)), we continue to apply the same standard of review, which is the manifest weight of the evidence.”
In re Marriage of Palarz (2022) illappct “3d 894, 902 (1996); 750 ILCS 5/602.5(a) (West 2018); 750 ILCS 5/602.”
Jameson v. Williams (2020) illappct “” 750 ILCS 5/602.5(a) (West 2018). In arriving at that decision, the court must consider all relevant factors, including: “(1) the wishes of the child, taking into account the child’s maturity and ability to express reasoned and independent preferences as to decision-making; (2)…”
In re S.F. (2020) illappct “In considering the factors set forth in the Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/602.5 (West 2016)) for determining a minor’s best interests, the court emphasized the court- appointed psychologist’s recommendation that S.”
Sadler v. Pulliam (2022) illappct · cites it 3× “7 of the Act (750 ILCS 5/602.5, 602.7 (West 2020)) govern those determinations and provide that circuit courts must allocate these parental responsibilities according to the child’s best interest.”
In re Marriage of Gorr (2024) illappct · cites it 2× “750 ILCS 5/602.5, 607.5, 610.5 (West 2020).”
Show all 81 citing cases →
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(a) — 33 cases
Jameson v. Williams (2020) illappct “” 750 ILCS 5/602.5(a) (West 2018). In arriving at that decision, the court must consider all relevant factors, including: 16 “(1) the wishes of the child, taking into account the child’s maturity and ability to express reasoned and independent preferences as to decision-making;…”
Young v. Herman (2018) illappct “This Case ¶ 66 Kourtney raises multiple arguments in support of her contention that the trial court's allocation of decision-making responsibilities was against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
In re Marriage of Palarz (2022) illappct “3d 894, 902 (1996); 750 ILCS 5/602.5(a) (West 2018); 750 ILCS 5/602.”
Jameson v. Williams (2020) illappct “” 750 ILCS 5/602.5(a) (West 2018). In arriving at that decision, the court must consider all relevant factors, including: “(1) the wishes of the child, taking into account the child’s maturity and ability to express reasoned and independent preferences as to decision-making; (2)…”
Young v. Herman (2018) illappct “Although the Dissolution Act now refers to “decision-making responsibilities” instead of “custody” (750 ILCS 5/602.5 (West 2016)), we continue to apply the same standard of review, which is the manifest weight of the evidence.”
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(b) — 5 cases
In re Marriage of Katsap (2022) illappct “6 The parties have clarified that the escrow is related to the surrogacy undertaking rather than the embryos.”
Carter v. Booker (2022) illappct
Adam V. v. Victoria W. (2022) illappct
In re Parentage of M.M. (2022) illappct
In re Marriage of d'Escoto (2021) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(b)(1) — 1 case
In re Marriage of Piegari (2016) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(b)(2) — 1 case
In re Marriage of Lemke (2021) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c) — 33 cases
Jameson v. Williams (2020) illappct “” 750 ILCS 5/602.5(a) (West 2018). In arriving at that decision, the court must consider all relevant factors, including: 16 “(1) the wishes of the child, taking into account the child’s maturity and ability to express reasoned and independent preferences as to decision-making;…”
In re Custody of G.L. (2017) illappct “See 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c) (West Supp. 2015). Ten factors in the subsections are identical.”
Sadler v. Pulliam (2022) illappct “7 of the Act (750 ILCS 5/602.5, 602.7 (West 2020)) govern those determinations and provide that circuit courts must allocate these parental responsibilities according to the child’s best interest.”
In re Marriage of Hussain (2023) illappct
Sadler v. Pulliam (2022) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c)(1) — 4 cases
In re Custody of G.L. (2017) illappct “See 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c) (West Supp. 2015). Ten factors in the subsections are identical.”
In re Custody of G.L. (2017) illappct
In re Marriage of Agee (2021) illappct
In re Marriage of Belt (2026) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c)(11) — 4 cases
Amber B. v. Daniel B. (2020) illappct
In re Marriage of Agee (2021) illappct
In re Marriage of Jonathon P. (2025) illappct
In re Marriage of Belt (2026) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c)(15) — 3 cases
In re Custody of G.L. (2017) illappct “See 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c) (West Supp. 2015). Ten factors in the subsections are identical.”
In re Custody of G.L. (2017) illappct “She argues that Gould’s testimony regarding education was speculative and irrelevant to the court’s best interest determinations.”
In re Custody of G.L. (2017) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c)(2) — 1 case
In re Marriage of Belt (2026) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c)(3) — 3 cases
In re: Marriage of Heaver (2025) illappct
In re Marriage of Waterman (2026) illappct
In re Marriage of Belt (2026) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c)(4) — 1 case
In re Marriage of Belt (2026) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c)(5) — 1 case
In re Marriage of Treva S. (2024) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c)(6) — 2 cases
In re Custody of G.L. (2017) illappct “See 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c) (West Supp. 2015). Ten factors in the subsections are identical.”
In re Custody of G.L. (2017) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c)(8) — 2 cases
In re Marriage of Whitney H. (2021) illappct
In re Marriage of Belt (2026) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c)(9) — 1 case
In re Marriage of Belt (2026) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(e) — 5 cases
In re Custody of G.L. (2017) illappct “See 750 ILCS 5/602.5(c) (West Supp. 2015). Ten factors in the subsections are identical.”
In re Custody of G.L. (2017) illappct “She argues that Gould’s testimony regarding education was speculative and irrelevant to the court’s best interest determinations.”
In re Custody of G.L. (2017) illappct
In re Marriage of Mardi L.A. (2023) illappct
In re Marriage of Jonathon P. (2025) illappct
— 750 ILCS 5/602.5(e)(3) — 1 case
In re Marriage of Charles Y. (2022) illappct
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.