Rose v. Potts

Citations: 577 N.E.2d 811; 217 Ill. App. 3d 661; 160 Ill. Dec. 486; 1991 Ill. App. LEXIS 1433Docket: 5-90-0238

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; August 21, 1991; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Appellate Court of Illinois reviewed a custody case involving Stacey Marie Rose, where the circuit court awarded custody to her mother, Connie Rose (now Connie Saffle), over claims from her father, William Rose, and her paternal grandmother, Ruth Potts. Ruth Potts appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly applied the presumption favoring custody with a natural parent and contended that she had successfully rebutted this presumption, asserting that the ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Key facts include that Connie gave birth to her first child, Michael, in 1983 while living with her parents, later placing legal custody of Michael with them due to her military service. Connie and William married in 1984 and had Stacey in 1985. After their separation in 1986, custody of Stacey was awarded to William. Connie, after serving jail time for writing bad checks, returned to her parents' home, later married Mike Saffle, and had another child, Joshua. Ruth sought guardianship when William planned to move Stacey to Germany, leading to competing custody petitions from Connie, William, and Ruth.

Throughout the four years of Ruth’s care for Stacey, Connie contributed minimally to Stacey’s support and had limited contact, visiting only for parts of 17 days. Connie has since sought to improve her living situation with plans to purchase a home. The court's decision and the implications of the presumption regarding the natural parent's custody rights were central points of contention in the appeal.

Ruth worked as a secretary for two years before quitting to care for Stacey, who lived with her starting February 16, 1986. During the initial seven months, Ruth's ex-husband, Dennis Potts, was her sole financial supporter. From March 1987 to September 1989, they received a military allotment of $275 monthly until their divorce in September 1989, after which Dennis provided no support. Ruth and Stacey currently live with Ruth's sister, Rose, in exchange for cleaning the house, while Ruth earns $100 weekly through cleaning and ironing. Ruth does not receive support from Connie or William and plans to seek full-time work. At trial, it was established that Stacey is happy and well cared for by Ruth, who is referred to as 'Mommy' by Stacey. 

The guardian ad litem recommended custody be awarded to Ruth. However, Ruth contends that the trial court improperly applied the superior-right doctrine, asserting that fulfilling the standing requirements of Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act section 601(b)(2) placed her on equal footing with Stacey's natural parent. The court affirmed that a natural parent's rights are presumed to be superior in custody disputes, although this presumption is not absolute and must consider the child's best interests. The trial court found that Ruth did not overcome the presumption of Connie's superior rights to custody, but this decision was deemed against the manifest weight of the evidence, indicating a potential error in the trial court's judgment. The ruling emphasizes that custody decisions must prioritize the child's best interests, irrespective of the parent's fitness.

Custody decisions presume that a father's rights are in the best interest of the child unless the father has abandoned the child or is otherwise unfit. This presumption can yield to the child's best interests based on environmental factors. In this case, although Connie (the mother) has a legal right to custody, her lack of support and minimal contact with her daughter Stacey, who has lived with Ruth (the non-parent) since infancy, raise concerns. Connie’s sporadic visits and claims of distance do not outweigh the established care Ruth provides. Additionally, Connie's son has been primarily raised by his maternal grandparents, indicating a pattern of neglect in her parenting duties. The trial court's decision to grant Connie permanent custody was found to contradict the evidence. As Stacey has now lived with Connie for some time, Ruth is awarded temporary custody instead of permanent custody, with provisions for Connie's visitation rights. The judgment is reversed and remanded for proper custody arrangements.