In re Levites
| Decision Date | 03 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2-20-0552 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (2d) 200552,185 N.E.3d 263,452 Ill.Dec. 187 |
| Parties | IN RE MARRIAGE OF Dmitry LEVITES, Petitioner and Counterrespondent-Appellee, and Nuriana Levites, Respondent and Counterpetitioner-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Lena Goretsky Winters, of Winters Family Law Firm, and David Winters, Andrew Foreman, and Bide Akande, of Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, both of Chicago, for appellant.
No brief filed for appellee.
¶ 1 After her previous appeal (In re Marriage of Levites , No. 2-20-0254 (2020) (Levites I ) ()) was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, respondent and counterpetitioner, Nuriana Levites, again appeals the order of the circuit court of Lake County denying her amended petition for relocation, seeking to relocate with her child from her marriage to petitioner and counterrespondent, Dimitry Levites. In this appeal, respondent argues that the trial court erred in assigning her the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation was in S.L.’s best interests and that the trial court's judgment denying her amended petition for relocation was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.
¶ 3 We summarize the relevant facts appearing in the record on appeal. Respondent is 34 years of age and currently resides in Chicago. Petitioner is 49 years old and currently resides in Highland Park. Respondent was born and educated in Russia, and she previously lived in Moscow with her family. Petitioner is a United States citizen and, for at least the past 21 years, has owned and operated a business making dental prosthetics and implants.
¶ 4 In March 2013, respondent lived in Moscow and vacationed in Jamaica, where she met petitioner, who lived in Illinois and was also vacationing in Jamaica. Respondent testified that petitioner aggressively courted her, calling her many times a day and flying her to Illinois. On August 20, 2014, the parties were married. During the marriage, a child, S.L., was born to the parties. On April 26, 2017, petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.
¶ 5 As respondent later learned, petitioner had three previous marriages. In 1997, petitioner was first married, and, in 1998, the first marriage was dissolved; no children were born from that first marriage. In 1998, petitioner married for a second time, and, during the marriage, petitioner and his second wife had twins. In 2001, petitioner divorced his second wife; he does not appear to have regular contact with his children from that marriage. In 2003, petitioner married his third wife, with whom he had a son. In 2011, petitioner and his third wife divorced. Respondent testified that she remembered seeing his son only three times during her marriage to petitioner, even though a parenting schedule had been set. Finally, after petitioner's and respondent's divorce had been initiated, petitioner married his fifth wife, Anat, in a purely religious ceremony, which S.L. attended. Later, still during the pendency of the dissolution proceedings here, petitioner divorced Anat in a purely religious ceremony.1
¶ 6 The parties’ marriage was marred with allegations of abusive behavior. Respondent testified that petitioner was very controlling and isolating. Specifically, respondent testified that petitioner controlled the parties’ finances and repeatedly confiscated respondent's credit cards. Respondent also testified that petitioner attempted to interrupt respondent's relationships with her parents and her sister and discouraged or prevented their visits and even telephone or video communications.
¶ 7 According to respondent, petitioner used illegal drugs, like cocaine, during the marriage. Petitioner denied that he used illegal drugs. Petitioner was tested once for illegal drug use, and the test found no illegal drugs. Even though respondent made additional allegations that petitioner was continuing to use illegal drugs, no further testing was ordered.
¶ 8 Respondent also testified that petitioner committed abusive acts during the marriage. Specifically, respondent testified that, sometime in the first half of 2015, when S.L. was about seven months old, petitioner took S.L. from her, physically pushed respondent from the house, and locked the doors, resulting in respondent crawling through a window to get back inside the house. Respondent further related that petitioner threatened to have her deported and would manufacture claims of abuse to prevent her from having custody of or seeing S.L. again.
¶ 9 Continuing, respondent testified about a November 2015 incident. The incident began with petitioner speaking ill of respondent's family. He then dragged her throughout the house, choked her, and pushed her so that she fell down, apparently all while she held S.L. Respondent testified that she was in S.L.’s room screaming to the neighbors for help. Respondent testified that petitioner's behavior had her so scared that she ran, still holding S.L., out of the child's room and downstairs. There, petitioner pushed her, S.L. still in her arms, from the house. Respondent went to the house of Stella Picchietti, a neighbor, who generally corroborated respondent's testimony about a fight between petitioner and respondent. On the next day, respondent filed a report with the police. Respondent stayed with a friend for the next few days.
¶ 10 According to respondent, on April 17, 2017, shortly before petitioner filed his petition for dissolution of marriage, petitioner became aggressive after some illicit drug use and forbade respondent from communicating with anyone, even her parents. Respondent testified that she was going to record petitioner's ravings but petitioner grabbed her phone and submerged it in the sink and then struck respondent. Respondent called the police emergency number. She also obtained an emergency order of protection against petitioner.
¶ 11 Following this incident and the grant of the emergency order of protection, petitioner moved out of the marital residence and stayed with his friend, Uladimir Marozau. Under adverse direct examination, petitioner testified that he had been friends with Marozau for about 13 years at that point. Marozau helped him to find a divorce attorney, and, on April 26, 2017, petitioner filed his petition for dissolution of marriage. Petitioner agreed that he informed Marozau about the progress of the divorce from respondent and instructed his attorney to include Marozau in receiving all divorce-related correspondence.
¶ 12 On May 23, 2017, the trial court entered a mutual no-contact order, which precluded both parties from engaging in harassing conduct, committing physical abuse, interfering with the other's personal liberty, or stalking each other. The order also set a parenting schedule, with S.L.’s primary residence with respondent and petitioner having parenting time on two weekday evenings and one overnight on the weekend; custody exchange was ordered to occur at a neighbor's house.
¶ 13 The record shows that, during the latter part of May 2017, petitioner transferred substantial sums of money and goods to Marozau. He transferred approximately $27,000 in cash and 11 cars worth approximately $125,000. The cars were transferred to a business in which Marozau had an interest and that was controlled by a friend of Marozau. The record does not indicate the relationship between petitioner and Marozau's friend. Petitioner explained that the transfer occurred to allow Marozau's business to sell the cars. These transactions appear to have been accomplished before May 29, 2017.
¶ 14 On May 26 and 27, 2017, petitioner exercised his overnight parenting time. During the afternoon of May 27, 2017, the parenting exchange occurred at the Highland Park police station. Petitioner was accompanied by Marozau. Petitioner, on adverse direct examination, testified that Marozau became aggressive during the exchange and told the police that he would shut down the police department and that he would kidnap S.L. Petitioner testified that, for his and S.L.’s safety, the police asked Marozau to leave. The police also told petitioner that he should consider Marozau's statement as a threat to be taken seriously, and they informed petitioner that they would contact the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) because of Marozau's statement.
¶ 15 On Memorial Day, May 29, 2017, at about 5:20 a.m., Marozau entered the marital residence and beat respondent, ultimately dragging her out of the house and down the driveway. Neighbors Howard and Barbara Dane had been awakened by their dog, and Howard observed Marozau make his entrance into the home; Barbara called the police. Howard went outside and confronted Dimitry Voronin, who was driving a car that had been parked outside the marital residence and who was apparently assisting in the offense. By the time Marozau had dragged respondent to the end of the driveway, police arrived and restrained and arrested Marozau and Voronin. Respondent testified that she had been severely beaten, she had bruises all over her body, and hair had been ripped from her head. Petitioner testified that, on the next court date, May 30, 2017, he did not observe any bruising on respondent; the court orders memorializing the May 30 hearing did not note that respondent demonstrated observable or obvious marks of violence.
¶ 16 Respondent filed an emergency petition seeking to suspend petitioner's visitation and to require supervised visitation once petitioner's parenting time resumed. Respondent also requested the appointment of a guardian ad litem. On May 30, 2017, the trial court ordered that both parties were precluded from having S.L. in Marozau's presence. In a separate order, Robert Lewinthal was appointed as S.L.’s guardian ad litem.
¶ 17 Regarding the May 29, 2017...
To continue reading
Request your trial