Gonzalez v. Donnelly

Citations: 204 Ill. App. 3d 28; 149 Ill. Dec. 580; 561 N.E.2d 1276; 1990 Ill. App. LEXIS 1561Docket: No. 3—88—0529

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; October 2, 1990; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Adam Gonzalez appeals a Will County circuit court order granting permanent custody of his daughter, Erika, to her maternal grandparents, Richard and Judy Donnelly. Adam and Nicollette Donnelly married two days before Erika's birth in 1979 and separated in May 1983. Following their divorce in July 1983, Nicollette received custody of Erika with Adam having visitation rights. After Nicollette's sudden death in November 1986, the Donnellys sought custody. Adam returned to Joliet and filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging the Donnellys' standing for custody under Illinois law. The trial court consolidated the cases, dismissed Adam's challenge, and temporarily placed Erika with the Donnellys pending a hearing.

An agreed order on December 15, 1986, awarded temporary custody to the Donnellys while allowing Adam visitation and outlining plans to restore Erika to Adam’s custody. Adam, who was stationed in Germany and later at Chanute Air Base in Illinois, exercised weekly visitation. In February 1988, the Donnellys filed for permanent custody, leading to a hearing where the trial court ultimately awarded custody to the Donnellys, permitting Adam visitation and requiring him to pay child support.

Adam's appeal raises three issues: the Donnellys' standing to seek custody, the court's ruling against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the admission of evidence regarding his drug use. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that under Illinois law, a non-parent can petition for custody if the child is not physically with a parent, and that the best interests of the child standard is applied in custody determinations.

Adam claims that following Nicollette's death, he automatically gained custody of Erika, despite the Donnellys having physical possession of her. The Illinois Supreme Court defines 'physical custody' as encompassing more than just physical possession, considering factors such as who has possession, how it was obtained, its duration, and its nature. Legal precedents indicate that a surviving natural parent can acquire custody upon the death of the other parent, even without immediate physical possession, but if the surviving parent voluntarily places the child with nonparents, this may indicate a relinquishment of custody.

In this case, Adam agreed to allow the Donnellys to maintain temporary custody while he was stationed in Germany, which constituted a waiver of any objection to their standing for custody. An agreed order stipulated that custody would revert to Adam when it was deemed in Erika's best interest, further acknowledging the Donnellys' standing. The trial court found that Adam had waived his right to contest the Donnellys' petition and agreed to the best interest standard for custody determination.

Adam also argues that the trial court's decision to grant permanent custody to the Donnellys was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although there is a legal presumption favoring natural parents, the Donnellys needed to demonstrate that custody with them was in Erika's best interest. The trial court reviewed extensive evidence, including testimonies and assessments from relatives and child psychologists, both of whom supported the Donnellys' stable and positive environment for Erika. The court concluded that Erika, having lost her mother, requires the security that her grandparents provide, while finding that Adam lacked appropriate parenting skills and stability.

Adam seeks custody of his child, Erika, prioritizing his desires over her well-being. He is described as self-centered and lacking responsiveness to Erika's needs. Financially, Richard Donnelly earns $41,000 annually and is employed at Caterpillar, while his wife Judy is a homemaker available to care for Erika. Adam, a self-employed carpenter’s helper, earns between $100 to $200 weekly but has minimal savings intended for both himself and Erika. Testimony from Adam's family indicates they could assist with Erika’s care, and Adam plans to live with his mother, who has space for Erika.

Erika is well-adjusted, performs well in school, and expressed a preference to live with her grandparents while wishing to visit her father. The trial court found Adam not credible, citing numerous contradictions in his testimony and a lack of contact with Erika during critical developmental years. Adam failed to provide consistent support payments and has not contributed financially since his discharge from the Air Force, despite a court order.

Adam's claim that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his past drug use was rejected. This evidence, while not considered for determining the best interest of the child, was utilized for impeachment purposes, revealing inconsistencies in Adam's statements about his move to California. The trial court deemed the evidence admissible, confirming that Adam's drug use was relevant to his credibility rather than directly impacting custody decisions.

The trial court's decision to award custody to the Donnellys was supported by substantial evidence, and the appellate court affirmed this decision, finding no abuse of discretion.