Hock v. Hock
| Decision Date | 06 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-408,75-408 |
| Parties | , 8 Ill.Dec. 639 Susan HOCK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas HOCK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Laraia, Solano, Berns & Kilander Ltd., Robert K. Kilander, Wheaton, for defendant-appellant.
Young & Gust, Lombard, for plaintiff-appellee.
In June of 1975, Thomas Hock, defendant-appellant, hereinafter referred to as husband-father, petitioned the circuit court of DuPage County to further modify the visitation provisions of a 1970 divorce decree. Husband-father asked that his daughter, Rachael, be sent to visit him for two weeks during the summer holidays. The circuit court denied the petition and cited husband-father's lack of attentiveness towards Rachael as a principal reason for doing so.
Husband-father has appealed. He contends that in the light of the extreme change in circumstances since June of 1971, when the visitation provisions were last modified, the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied the modification requested by him. Because of the unique set of circumstances involved in this case, we must agree with husband-father and conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion when it refused to further modify the visitation provisions of the 1970 divorce decree.
The husband-father and plaintiff-appellee, Susan Hock, hereinafter referred to as wife-mother, were divorced in 1970. The couple had one child, Rachael, who was placed in her mother's custody. Husband-father was given visitation rights for two hours on alternate Saturdays and Sundays. The record reveals husband-father did exercise these visitation rights, although not so fully as he might have. In June of 1971, wife-mother desired to move to Missouri. She petitioned the circuit court for permission to take Rachael with her. The permission was granted. The circuit court also modified the visitation provisions of the divorce decree to provide husband-father with "reasonable rights of visitation when the child is in Missouri or Illinois and the child shall not be removed overnight from the residence of the plaintiff (wife-mother) during said visitation." In June of 1971, husband-father was in relatively good health and employed as a sheet metal worker, earning $250 per week. He owned an automobile and was fully capable of driving. Under these circumstances, the visitation provisions of the divorce decree as modified in June of 1971 were reasonable. However, since that time, the circumstances have changed to such an extent that the June 1971 visitation provisions are no longer reasonable.
The circumstances changed in the spring of 1972, when husband-father lost his eyesight as a complication of diabetes. Husband-father is now legally blind, unable to drive, and unable to work. His only income is the $325 per month that he receives from the Social Security Administration. Social Security also pays wife-mother $178 per month, presumably for Rachael's benefit.
In matters of visitation and custody, a court's primary concern must be for the welfare of the child. (Nye v. Nye (1952), 411 Ill. 408, 105 N.E.2d 300.) An important aspect of a child's welfare is the relationship between parent and child. It is in the best interest of a child to have a healthy and close relationship with both parents. Keefer v. Keefer (1969), 107 Ill.App.2d 74, 245 N.E.2d 784.
Under the factual situation presented, the visitation provisions of the divorce decree as modified in June of 1971 are no longer reasonable, and the circuit court's refusal to modify them, as husband-father requested, was an abuse of discretion. In denying the modification requested by husband-father, the circuit court indicated it thought he should visit Rachael in Missouri to demonstrate that he was sincere in desiring to establish a relationship with his daughter. In the case at hand, the imposition of such a pre-condition is improper for two reasons.
First, it indicates a desire on the part of the circuit court to punish husband-f...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patel v. Sines–Patel
...best interest of a child to have a healthy and close relationship with both parents.” [373 Ill.Dec. 530] [993 N.E.2d 1089]Hock v. Hock, 50 Ill.App.3d 583, 584, 8 Ill.Dec. 639, 365 N.E.2d 1025 (1977). Section 607(a) provides that the noncustodial parent is entitled to reasonable visitation w......
-
Marriage of Brophy, In re
...of the child is normally fostered by having a healthy and close relationship with both parents. (Hock v. Hock (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 583, 584, 8 Ill.Dec. 639, 365 N.E.2d 1025, 1027; Doggett v. Doggett (1977), 51 Ill.App.3d 868, 872, 9 Ill.Dec. 474, 366 N.E.2d 985, 988.) In order to effectuat......
-
Marriage of Johnson, In re
... ... (Frail v. Frail (1977), 54 Ill.App.3d 1013, 12 Ill.Dec. 680, 370 N.E.2d 303; Hock v. Hock (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 583, 8 Ill.Dec. 639, 365 N.E.2d 1025; Blazina v. Blazina (1976), 42 Ill.App.3d 159, 1 Ill.Dec. 164, 356 N.E.2d 164; ... ...
-
Marriage of Dobey, In re
... ... (Hock v. Hock (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 583, 584, 8 Ill.Dec. 639, 641, 365 N.E.2d 1025, 1027.) According to section 607 of the Act, the trial court should ... ...