Parenting time and major decisions are different questions
Parents often use “custody” to mean both where a child lives and who makes important decisions. Illinois law separates parenting time from significant decision-making responsibilities. Parenting time addresses the time allocated to each parent. Significant decisions include education, health, religion subject to statutory qualifications, and extracurricular activities. A request for more school-night overnights does not necessarily seek a change in who selects the child's school.
Section 602.7 governs parenting time. Section 602.5 governs significant decision-making and separately requires consideration of a child's maturity and reasoned, independent preferences about those decisions. Neither section turns the child into the decision-maker. Be precise about the relief you want: a different exchange time, a new overnight schedule, educational decision-making, or a combination. 750 ILCS 5/602.5(a)-(c).
For concrete scheduling possibilities, compare our Illinois custody schedule examples. The right proposal should address the child's daily life, rather than simply demand that one parent “win custody.”
How much weight does the child's preference receive?
The statute focuses on maturity, reasoning, and independence, rather than a numerical age cutoff. An older child's thoughtful explanation may deserve considerable attention. A younger child's views still require an age-appropriate assessment. Neither a teenager's insistence nor a parent's belief that the child sounds mature automatically determines the outcome.
In In re Marriage of Adamson, 2016 IL App (3d) 150105, paragraphs 12-13, the appellate court explained that a mature child's soundly reasoned preference deserves considerable weight, but a court may find that the preference is not in the child's best interests. It affirmed the denial of a mother's request to modify visitation and parenting time. The older child's explanations included disagreements the court regarded as ordinary parent-teenager issues, and concern that the existing schedule was unfair to his mother.
Adamson applied the former custody and visitation statutes to the order before it. Its discussion illustrates why the reasons behind a preference matter; it does not supply the current modification test. Today's statutory starting points are sections 602.7 and 610.5, discussed below.
A useful evaluation asks what the requested arrangement would actually change. Would it reduce an exhausting school commute? Preserve a supportive sibling relationship? Accommodate a treatment schedule? Or is the preference tied to fewer household rules, a recent argument, or pressure to protect a parent's feelings? These are practical questions for assessing the evidence, not a separate legal test or a script for questioning the child.
The judge must consider the child's overall best interests
A child's preference is one of multiple relevant factors under section 602.7(b). Other factors address past caregiving, relationships with parents and siblings, adjustment to home and school, the child's needs, transportation and schedules, health, violence or abuse, and each parent's ability to put the child first and support appropriate parent-child relationships. The court considers the circumstances together; counting factors favorable to each parent does not resolve the case. 750 ILCS 5/602.7(b).
For example, a teenager may understandably prefer spending every weekend with friends near one parent's home. A workable proposal might preserve that social connection while also providing meaningful time with the other parent. The question is what arrangement serves the child, including relationships and practical needs, rather than which household is more popular.
Our guide to Illinois school schedules and parenting time explains issues to address when school mornings, activities, and transportation drive a proposed change.
Will the judge interview the child privately?
The judge may interview a child in chambers to learn the child's wishes about allocating parental responsibilities. The interview is discretionary, not mandatory whenever a parent requests it. Section 604.10(a) also establishes important safeguards:
- Counsel must be present unless the parties agree otherwise.
- A court reporter must record the entire interview.
- The transcript must be filed under seal and released only by court order.
An in-chambers interview therefore is not an unrecorded conversation that disappears from the case. Parents should discuss the proposed procedure and any participation issue with their lawyer, particularly if a party is self-represented. 750 ILCS 5/604.10(a).
In In re Marriage of Jessica F., 2024 IL App (4th) 231264, paragraphs 36-44 and 51, the appellate court upheld the decision not to interview a ten-year-old during a parenting-time dispute. It emphasized the court's discretion and the pressure an interview can place on a child. It also distinguished learning the child's wishes from using the interview to investigate alleged misconduct. The court affirmed the parenting-time judgment on the record presented.
The lesson is to plan an appropriate way to present relevant evidence. Asking for an interview does not transfer the parent's evidentiary burden to the judge or the child. Nor does this decision mean that safety concerns should be ignored. Allegations of harm require prompt attention and an appropriate evidentiary and protective process.
A guardian ad litem and a child representative have different roles
Illinois courts can appoint an attorney in several distinct capacities under section 506. The appointment order matters because these roles carry different duties and ways of participating in the case.
| Appointment | Principal role |
|---|---|
| Attorney for the child | Provides independent legal counsel and owes the child the duties owed to an adult client. |
| Guardian ad litem, often called a GAL | Investigates and interviews the child and parties; provides best-interests reporting or recommendations subject to statutory procedures and possible cross-examination. |
| Child representative | Investigates and advocates the child's best interests through legal arguments; considers the child's wishes but is not bound by them. Does not testify or submit an evidentiary recommendation or report. |
No appointee becomes a substitute judge, and an appointment is not required in every case. The court considers the available evidence, other means of obtaining information, and resources for payment. Court-appointed services can generate fees allocated by court order. 750 ILCS 5/506(a), (a-5), (b).
Parents should provide accurate records and cooperate with the authorized investigation. They should not tell the child what to say or promise that the professional will produce a particular outcome. Read our guide to requesting a guardian ad litem in Illinois for the appointment process.
Can a child's changing wishes justify modifying an order?
A new preference may be relevant, but it is not a self-executing amendment. First identify whether the requested change concerns parenting time, significant decision-making, or a protective restriction. Those requests do not all use the same standard.
For a parenting-time modification, section 610.5(a) requires changed circumstances that necessitate modification to serve the child's best interests. In Reynolds v. Reynolds, 2026 IL 132627, paragraphs 40-52, the Illinois Supreme Court held that this subsection governs parenting-time modification motions. It rejected importing subsection (c)'s substantial-change requirement into that analysis and overruled conflicting reasoning in In re Marriage of Trapkus. It affirmed the appellate court's judgment, reversed the trial court's directed finding against the father, and remanded for further consideration. It did not automatically award his requested schedule. The September 24, 2026 opinion is linked in its official slip-opinion form.
Practically, connect the proposed change to specific developments and the child's welfare. A changed school routine, transportation problem, relationship, or care need may help explain the request. Simply saying “my child is older now” leaves the court without an explanation of why the particular change is necessary.
Significant decision-making changes require a separate analysis. Section 610.5(a) generally limits motions within two years, subject to stipulation, the statutory endangerment gateway, and section 603.10. Subsection (c) generally requires a substantial change proved by a preponderance of the evidence and a best-interests necessity; subsections (d) and (e) provide additional routes for qualifying agreements and other specified circumstances. Have counsel identify the applicable provision rather than applying one test to every requested change. 750 ILCS 5/610.5(a), (c)-(e).
Our Chicago custody modification attorneys can assess which request matches the problem you are trying to solve.
What if the child refuses parenting time or reports feeling unsafe?
Distinguish a scheduling preference, relationship conflict, and an allegation of harm. Listen without supplying answers or treating the child as a witness to rehearse. Record what happened accurately and seek advice about the appropriate response. A child's refusal alone does not authorize a parent to rewrite the order indefinitely.
Safety restrictions have their own statutory requirements. Under section 603.10(a), after a hearing, the court must enter necessary protective orders if a preponderance of the evidence establishes conduct that seriously endangered the child's mental, moral, or physical health or significantly impaired emotional development. Available measures include supervision, protected exchanges, and adjustments to parental responsibilities. 750 ILCS 5/603.10(a).
An immediate danger calls for immediate assistance, not waiting for a routine consultation. For other urgent concerns, ask counsel promptly about emergency relief and what evidence the court needs. Avoid assuming either that every refusal proves abuse or that an allegation is merely a child's preference.
Two examples of how the distinction works
Example one: a teenager wants a shorter school commute
A fifteen-year-old has started a demanding school program and early activities. The existing schedule produces long trips on several mornings. The child consistently asks for additional school nights at the closer home while maintaining weekends and other time with the second parent.
The child's age does not decide the request. Useful evidence might include the school schedule, actual travel times, attendance, each parent's availability, and a proposed calendar preserving important relationships. The child's reasons fit issues the best-interests statute directs courts to consider. If an order already exists, the requesting parent must still establish the applicable modification requirements. A court could accept, reject, or adjust the proposal depending on the complete evidence.
Example two: a child prefers the household with fewer rules
A thirteen-year-old argues with a parent about homework and screen time, then says the other home should become the full-time residence. That parent tells the child that turning fourteen will make the decision final.
Illinois's parenting-time statute supplies no such birthday rule. The court would evaluate the child's reasoning and independence along with educational needs, caregiving, relationships, and the other relevant circumstances. Adamson illustrates why a child's stated preference can receive consideration without requiring the requested result. The adults should investigate the actual problem and develop an appropriate response, rather than making promises about what a judge must do.
These examples are hypothetical and do not predict the result in any family's case.
A practical checklist before seeking a change
Prepare the adult evidence while protecting the child from litigation pressure:
- Collect the complete orders. Include the parenting plan, allocation judgment, amendments, and any protective orders.
- Define the requested change. Write a proposed calendar with school nights, weekends, holidays, transportation, and exchange details.
- Identify what changed and when. Use dates and specific developments rather than labels such as “unhappy” or “uncooperative.”
- Gather records you lawfully possess. Relevant school schedules, attendance records, communications, and caregiving calendars may help counsel assess the facts. Discuss privacy and admissibility before obtaining additional material.
- Keep your account separate from the child's words. Do not draft a statement for the child to adopt, repeatedly question the child, or promise a particular result.
- Discuss the proper evidence process. Counsel can evaluate whether an interview, appointment, evaluation, or other evidence is appropriate and explain potential costs.
- Address existing obligations and urgent concerns. Obtain advice about compliance, safety, and any temporary relief while a request is pending.
Bring a short chronology and a realistic proposal to the consultation. This helps the lawyer evaluate both the legal standard and whether a negotiated adjustment could address the problem without placing the child in the middle.
Free consultation about your Illinois parenting-time case
Chicago Family Attorneys offers a free initial consultation for people seeking to hire an attorney. If your child wants a different living arrangement, we can discuss the existing order, the reason for the requested change, and whether our firm is a fit for your representation needs.
Request a free consultation or call 312-965-5618. Bring your current parenting orders and a brief explanation of what has changed. The consultation does not include ongoing representation or a promise of any result. Any representation, scope of work, attorney fees, and other costs are subject to a separate agreement.
This article provides general information about Illinois law as checked on November 3, 2026. It is not legal advice for a particular family. The applicable orders, evidence, and procedural posture can change the analysis.