2013 IL App (3d) 120846
R.M., Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
D.Z., Respondent-Appellant.
v.
D.Z., Respondent-Appellant.
3-12-0846
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT
Order filed March 4, 2013
A.D., 2013
A.D., 2013
JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Holdridge and O'Brien concurred in the judgment.
This custody dispute concerns twins born in August of 2000. A "February 8, 2006, joint parenting agreement awarded joint custody, naming R.M. the residential parent. The agreement provided respondent with reasonable visitation and ordered him to pay slightly less than 28% of his net biweekly income due to the fact that he provides substantial daycare for the children.
¶ 6 The petition alleges that R.M. announced an intent to leave respondent's residence and move into another residence in which her 17-year-old daughter, K.M., would also be residing. The petition continued that K.M.:
"has threatened to physically hurt the minor children by twittering
on January 7, 2010, 'I'm going fucking insane I hope these little fuckers have school tomorrow or I will probably kill them ... my brothers are such ungrateful pricks I hate disrespectful little cretins.' On January 3, 2010, K.M. twittered 'beat kids.' "
¶ 7 Respondent attached documents to his petition purporting to be printouts from K.M.'s Twitter account. These documents also indicate that K.M. authored tweets about "drinking with my mom ... now I know why I only drink wine" and "drinking Bailey's with my mama." On February 5, 2010, K.M. tweeted, "I love drinking with my mom LMFAO."
When announcing these rulings, the trial court noted that it understood respondent's motivation for bringing the petition to change custody given the Twitter postings of K.M. However, the court noted that "it's become apparent to the court after hearing many of these types of cases now that young people don't put the normal every day occurrences of life on their Twitter account postings. *** And trying to rely upon Twitter account postings or MySpace or Facebook as proof of facts, actually things that have happened, just can't be done - - especially with young people."
¶ 36 The court acknowledged K.M.'s use of Ecstasy and marijuana, finding them troublesome, but found the mother was not aware of the use of either.
While the court noted the attitude toward the boys as displayed in the Twitter postings "is alarming," it found that the postings were not proof of "something actually occurring." Ultimately, the court noted that "actual evidence of occurrences is - - is just lacking."
Respondent arrives at this conclusion by noting that the "only reference the court had regarding the time period K.M. was abusing Ecstasy" came from a "blog posting" dated December 20, 2009. This blog posting refers to Ecstasy use the previous winter. As R.M. testified she lived with K.M and the boys until August of 2009, respondent claims that the trial court's finding that the drug use "was not with permission or promotion or knowledge of the parent that she was not even living with" is simply not supported by the record.
The substance of respondent's arguments seeking a rehearing equate to a disagreement with the trial court's finding that K.M. did not live with R.M., and that the trial court erred in finding that the evidence admitted failed to support the conclusion that K.M. posed a threat to the minor children. As noted above, sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the trial court's findings that K.M. does not live with R.M and that her social media postings do not evince a material change in circumstances sufficient to modify custody. As such, we cannot say the court erred in denying respondent's motion for a rehearing.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
¶ 54 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County is affirmed.
¶ 55 Affirmed."
