Michelle A. Lawless
The Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC
161 N. Clark St. Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois
Telephone: (312) 741-1092
www.malfamilylaw.com; michelle@malfamilylaw.com.Two-year plenary order of protection upheld. In a protracted matter over several years which began with both parties filing petitions for emergency orders of protection against each other, husband was ultimately granted a plenary order of protection (OP) against wife, which included their young son as a protected person. Wife was ordered to have supervised virtual visitation. Wifeappealed the issuance of the OP and the Appellate Court affirmed. Wife claimed the trial court did not make the relevant findings required by the Domestic Violence Act (DVA) and challenged the court’s findings with respect to abuse. The evidence showed wife had engaged in a number of harassing actions including absconding with the child to New York, changing the locks on the husband’s apartment and ransacking it, sending threatening messages to his family, and sending an email to husband’s employer. The trial court’s finding of abuse was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court further addressed wife’s argument that heralleged acts were “stale” because they were from three years prior to the time of the hearing. However, any past evidence of abuse, no matter how remote, may be relevant to prove abuse under the DVA. The Court also declined to agree with wife’s argument that themental health examiner’s report should not have been admitted into evidence because it was not timely delivered pursuant to SCR 215(c), which requires delivery of the report within 21 days of the completion of the examination. However, because no court order wasentered appointing a SCR 215 examination (it appears an agreed order was prepared but never entered), this argument failed. The Court also noted that even if it further considered such argument, it was unclear when the examiner completed her examination and that several continuance orders were entered continuing the matter on the grounds that the parties were awaiting the completion of the report, and wife had not objected to timeliness at any point.In re Marriage of Kriley, 2025 IL App (1st) 241923.
In re Marriage of Kriley
Supervised visitation order vacated. In a heavily protracted matter where a plenary order of protection was entered against wife and husband and a young son were named as protected persons, wife was ordered to have only supervised virtual visitation with the child. The trial court appointed the GAL as the supervisor and ordered the parties to equally divide payment of the GAL’s fees, including requiring his current bill to be brought current in order for the visitation to commence. The record indicated that during the course of the case, there was difficulty finding a supervisor who was willing to take on the case given the specific set of facts. The Appellate Court questioned the appointment of the GAL as the supervisor noting that it was an “odd extension” of the role particularly when other professionals specialize in the area. It also clarified that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to have ordered supervised visitation given the evidence presented (see Flash Point#1), and that both the GAL and mental health examiner’s conclusions that wife needed significant mental health support. The Court vacated the order regarding the supervised visitation and asked the trial court to take another look at it, including whether there was a professional supervisor who would be willing to do supervised virtual visitation. The Court made it clear it was not ordering the trial court to reach a different result on remand. In re Marriage of Kriley, 2025 IL App (1st) 241923.
In re Marriage of Kriley
Non-marital character of accounts upheld due to motion in liminebeing granted. In a dissolution of marriage action, husband failed to identify or produce documentation in discovery supporting his claim that various financial accounts were nonmarital property. As a result, the trial court granted the wife’s motion in liminepursuant to SCR 219(c) brought on the eve of trial barring him from introducing evidence of the accounts’ nonmarital character at trial. The Appellate Court affirmed finding the trial court did not abuse discretion, noting the husband failed to supplement discovery responses prior to the discovery cutoff deadlines and he failed to make an offer of proof regarding the accounts’ origins or tracing of funds at trial. When a motion in limineis granted, an offer of proof is critical to save for review the argument that the exclusion of the evidence was in error. The Court further rejected husband’s arguments that he was prejudiced by the timing of the motion in limine or by proceeding pro se at trial. The Court also upheld the 75%-25% division of the marital accounts in the husband’s favor.In re Marriage of Xinos and Marino, 2025 IL App (1st) 232326
In re Marriage of Xinos and Marino
Plenary order of protection affirmed with respect to two persons in a prior dating relationship. The Second District affirmed the trial court’s entry of a plenary order of protection in favor of petitioner, finding that respondent engaged in harassment and interfered with her personal liberty. The parties had a brief dating relationship that ended in September 2022, after which petitioner repeatedly told respondent to cease contact. Despite this, respondent left numerous voicemails, sent texts from alternative numbers, appeared at petitioner’s home uninvited, and ultimately sent an explicit photo of petitioner via Snapchat more than a year after their breakup. The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that these actions constituted harassment causing emotional distress and that respondent’s conduct was intended to compel petitioner to maintain unwanted contact. The court also rejected respondent’s argument that the trial court failed to properly consider the statutory factors under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act, noting that the trial court’s written order reflected consideration of those factors and that its findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.Montelauro v. Lutkus, 2025 IL App (2d) 240369.
Montelauro v. Lutkus