Hawkins v. Hawkins

• Decision Date: 29 December 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-357,80-357
• Citation: Hawkins v. Hawkins, 102 Ill.App.3d 1037, 430 N.E.2d 652, 58 Ill.Dec. 620 (Ill. App. 1981)
• Parties: , 58 Ill.Dec. 620 Stephanie HAWKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Bruce HAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 652

430 N.E.2d 652

102 Ill.App.3d 1037, 58 Ill.Dec. 620

Stephanie HAWKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Bruce HAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80-357.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Dec. 29, 1981.

John W. Alsup, Jr., Mount Sterling, for defendant-appellant.

Robert L. Metzler, Pekin, for plaintiff-appellee.

SCOTT, Presiding Justice:

This appeal arises from a decision of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County granting visitation privileges to the maternal grandparents of a minor child, Charland J. Hawkins. The minor's father, Jeffrey Hawkins, urges us to find that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to order such visitation, or alternatively, that the circumstances of the instant case do not warrant such an order. After reviewing the record and the authorities cited by counsel for both parties, we cannot agree with the father's position and therefore affirm the decision of the circuit court.

Jeffrey Hawkins was divorced from Stephanie Hawkins on May 5, 1977. The Tazewell County Circuit Court awarded custody of Charland, the minor child of the parties, to his mother. Subsequently, on October 6, 1978, Stephanie Hawkins was murdered while residing with Charland in the State of Florida. Following this tragedy, the minor lived for a time with his father, and then with his maternal grandparents, Thomas and Margy Colson, and his maternal great-grandparents, Earl and Margaret Goodin. A dispute over custody arose between the minor's maternal relatives and his father with the dispute culminating in an action before the Tazewell County court. A recitation of the facts surrounding that dispute is set forth in Hawkins v. Hawkins (1979), 77 Ill.App.3d 873, 33 Ill.Dec. 279, 396 N.E.2d 668, wherein we determined that Jeffrey Hawkins was entitled to legal custody of his son.

Following our 1979 decision, the Colsons, Charland's maternal grandparents, filed a petition for visitation rights. After hearing those rights were granted. Jeffrey Hawkins contends that the visitation order of the circuit court should be reversed.

An issue has been raised here regarding the venue of the Tazewell County court to grant visitation privileges to the Colsons. After filing the previously referenced custody action in the Tazewell County court, Jeffrey Hawkins moved with his son to Brown County, Illinois. It is argued that this change in residence simultaneously changed the proper venue for post-judgment petitions. We note that venue in such matters is waived unless timely objection is made. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 40, par. 512(d).) Finding no such objection in the record, we need not consider whether venue in Tazewell County was proper or otherwise.

An additional issue has been raised regarding the jurisdiction of the circuit court to hear a request from grandparents for visitation privileges. Jeffrey Hawkins, the appellant here, correctly points out that the Dissolution Act provides express guidance for granting visitation to a non-custodial "parent", but no similar statutory authority exists for grandparents or other interested parties. See generally, Illinois Revised Statutes 1979, chapter 40, paragraph 607. We believe the trial court was empowered to award visitation to the grandparents despite the Dissolution Act's silence on this issue.

Prior to the adoption of the Dissolution Act, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 40, par. 101 et seq.), the matters of divorce and child custody were regulated by the Divorce Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 40, par. 1 et seq. (repealed 1977)). That Act was silent not only as to visitation for grandparents and other interested parties, but also as to visitation for non-custodial parents. Nevertheless, a long standing common law tradition clearly established the circumstances under which parents, grandparents and others might be entitled to court ordered visitation with a minor child. (Miner v. Miner (1849), 11 Ill. 43; Zimmerman v. Zimmerman (1909), 242 Ill. 552, 90 N.E. 192; Zechman v. Zechman (1945), 391 Ill. 510, 63 N.E.2d 499; Rodely v. Rodely (1963), 28 Ill.2d 347, 192 N.E.2d 347; Aud v. Etienne (1970), 47 Ill.2d 110, 264 N.E.2d 196; Chodzko v. Chodzko (1976), 66 Ill.2d 28, 4 Ill.Dec. 313, 360 N.E.2d 60.) We hold that this common law tradition has continuing validity even after the repeal of the Divorce Act, at least insofar as the tradition provides authority for extending visitation privileges to grandparents in special, limited circumstances. Chodzko v. Chodzko.

In support of this holding, we note that the rules of statutory construction argue for such a result. A statute will be construed as changing common law only to the extent that the terms thereof warrant, or as necessarily implied from what is expressed. (Sternberg Dredging Co. v. Sternberg's Estate (1957), 10 Ill.2d 328, 140 N.E.2d 125; Acme Fireworks Corp. v. Bibb (1955), 6 Ill.2d 112, 126 N.E.2d 688; People v. Monoson (1979), 75 Ill.App.3d 1, 30 Ill.Dec. 892, 393 N.E.2d 1239.) Repeal of the common law by implication is not favored. (Reeves v. Eckles (1966), 77 Ill.App.2d 408, 222 N.E.2d 530, appeal after remand 108 Ill.App.2d 427, 248 N.E.2d 125.) The express language of section 607 of the Dissolution Act does not require the implied repeal of prior law creating visitation privileges for grandparents. In accord with this view are the writings of distinguished practitioners (Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 40, par. 607, Historical and Practical Notes, (Smith-Hurd 1979)), as well as the decisions from courts of other states that have adopted the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act from which section 607 derives. Simpson v. Simpson (Ky.1979), 586 S.W.2d 33.

The final issue raised on this appeal concedes the authority of the court to consider a request on behalf of the grandparents for visitation, but challenges the granting of that request based on the evidence presented to the circuit court in the instant case. The leading case on this subject is Chodzko v. Chodzko. Therein, the supreme court stated that:

"(t)he right to determine the third parties who are to share in the custody and influence of and participate in the visitation privileges with the children should vest primarily with the parent who is charged with the daily responsibility of rearing the children. In the absence of unusual circumstances, these matters should not be of judicial concern." 360 N.E.2d 60, 63.

The Chodzko court concluded that:

"the giving of the visitation rights to the grandfather over the objections of the mother in the absence of any special circumstances justifying the interference with the superior custodial right of the natural parent was error." 4 Ill.Dec. 313, 316, 360 N.E.2d 60, 63.

Nonetheless, the Chodzko majority approvingly cited three fact situations where the special circumstances justified judicial interference on behalf of grandparents. Those special facts existed in Solomon v. Solomon (1943), 319 Ill.App. 618, 49 N.E.2d 807; Lucchesi v. Lucchesi (1947), 330 Ill.App. 506, 71 N.E.2d 920; and Boyles v. Boyles (1973), 14 Ill.App.3d 602, 302 N.E.2d 199.

We find the facts of the case sub judice sufficiently similar to the special circumstances of the Boyles decision to sustain the visitation ordered by the circuit court. There as here, the natural parent was deceased. There as here, the minor child had a particularly close relationship with the grandparents because of their daily association. There as here, it was determined that a continuation of the relationship between the child and his grandparents would be a positive benefit affecting the best interest of the child. And, in the final analysis, it is the best interest of the child that must weigh most heavily in the court's determination. Chodzko v. Chodzko.

For the reasons above stated, and in reliance on the authorities cited, we conclude that the order previously entered by the Tazewell County Circuit Court was correct.

Affirmed.

STOUDER, J., concurs.

BARRY, J., specially concurs.

BARRY,...