750 ILCS 5/610
(Repealed)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(750 ILCS 5/610)
(from Ch. 40, par. 610)
Sec. 610. (Repealed). (Source: P.A. 97-659, eff. 6-1-12. Repealed by P.A. 99-90, eff. 1-1-16.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 101
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Department of Public Aid Ex Rel. Davis v. Brewer
Department of Public Aid Ex Rel. Davis v. Brewer (1998)
“Justice McMORROW delivered the opinion of the court: At issue in this appeal is whether, under section 610 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/610 (West 1996)), in order to modify a child custody judgment within two years of the judgment's…”
In Re Marriage of Sobol (2003)
“*187 In the trial court, respondent asserted that petitioner's petition was a modification of custody under section 610 of the Act (750 ILCS 5/610 (West 2000)), and thus it should be dismissed because petitioner brought it within two years of a custody judgment (see 750 ILCS…”
In Re Marriage of Marsh (2003)
“610 (now 750 ILCS 5/610 (West 2000))). Mitchell, 103 Ill.”
In Re Marriage of Bates (2004)
“’s physical, mental, moral or emotional health was seriously endangered by the present environment, as required by section 610 of the Act (750 ILCS 5/610 (West 2000)). Norma next filed a motion to bar the testimony of Dr.”
In Re Marriage of Wycoff (1994)
“Judith was ordered to pay child support of $300 per month. The court also directed that the GAL's fees of $8,119.”
In Re Marriage of Spent (2003)
“Therefore, he was required to attach an affidavit as required by section 610(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Dissolution Act) (750 ILCS 5/610(a) (West 2000)), which he failed to do.”
In re Marriage of Wendy L. D. (2017)
“See 750 ILCS 5/610 (West 2014). George’s petition claimed that since the custody judgment, Wendy had engaged in “increasingly bizarre and erratic” behavior and “a relentless campaign to alienate the children” from George.”
In re Marriage of Davis Opinion corrected dissent added (2003)
“750 ILCS 5/610(b) (West 2000). Additionally, there exists a strong presumption in favor of maintaining the status quo in custody arrangements.”
In re Marriage of Wendy L. D. (2017)
“See 750 ILCS 5/610 (West 2014). George’s petition claimed that since the custody judgment, Wendy had engaged in “increasingly bizarre and erratic” behavior and “a relentless campaign to alienate the children” from George.”
In re Marriage of Debra N. (2014)
“*** (b) The court shall not modify a prior custody judgment unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior judgment or that were unknown to the court at the time of entry of the prior judgment, that a change has…”
In Re Marriage of Lasky (1997)
“The court shall state in its decision specific findings of fact in support of its modification or termination of joint custody if either parent opposes the modification or termination.”
In Re Marriage of Schlam (1995)
“(West 1992)); (3) in granting respondent’s petition to declare void where respondent failed to meet the requirements of a motion to modify custody (750 ILCS 5/610(b) (West 1992)); and (4) because granting the petition to declare void was contrary to the purposes of the Act and…”
— 750 ILCS 5/610(a) — 31 cases
In Re Marriage of Sobol (2003)
“*187 In the trial court, respondent asserted that petitioner's petition was a modification of custody under section 610 of the Act (750 ILCS 5/610 (West 2000)), and thus it should be dismissed because petitioner brought it within two years of a custody judgment (see 750 ILCS…”
In Re Marriage of Marsh (2003)
“610 (now 750 ILCS 5/610 (West 2000))). Mitchell, 103 Ill.”
Department of Public Aid Ex Rel. Davis v. Brewer (1998)
“Justice McMORROW delivered the opinion of the court: At issue in this appeal is whether, under section 610 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/610 (West 1996)), in order to modify a child custody judgment within two years of the judgment's…”
In Re Marriage of Spent (2003)
“Therefore, he was required to attach an affidavit as required by section 610(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Dissolution Act) (750 ILCS 5/610(a) (West 2000)), which he failed to do.”
In Re Custody of Ayala (2003)
— 750 ILCS 5/610(b) — 58 cases
Department of Public Aid Ex Rel. Davis v. Brewer (1998)
“Justice McMORROW delivered the opinion of the court: At issue in this appeal is whether, under section 610 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/610 (West 1996)), in order to modify a child custody judgment within two years of the judgment's…”
In re Marriage of Davis Opinion corrected dissent added (2003)
“750 ILCS 5/610(b) (West 2000). Additionally, there exists a strong presumption in favor of maintaining the status quo in custody arrangements.”
In re Marriage of Debra N. (2014)
“*** (b) The court shall not modify a prior custody judgment unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior judgment or that were unknown to the court at the time of entry of the prior judgment, that a change has…”
In Re Marriage of Wycoff (1994)
“Judith was ordered to pay child support of $300 per month. The court also directed that the GAL's fees of $8,119.”
In Re Marriage of Lasky (1997)
“The court shall state in its decision specific findings of fact in support of its modification or termination of joint custody if either parent opposes the modification or termination.”
— 750 ILCS 5/610(c) — 3 cases
Department of Public Aid Ex Rel. Davis v. Brewer (1998)
“Justice McMORROW delivered the opinion of the court: At issue in this appeal is whether, under section 610 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/610 (West 1996)), in order to modify a child custody judgment within two years of the judgment's…”
In Re Marriage of Harrison (2009)
— 750 ILCS 5/610(f) — 1 case
In re Marriage of Vickers (2022)
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.
|