By: Donald C. Schiller
Schiller DuCanto & Fleck LLP
Chicago, Lake Forest and Wheaton, Illinois
Telephone: (312) 641-5560; Facsimile: (312) 641-6361:
www.sdflaw.com; dschiller@sdflaw.com

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.

1. Appellate Court affirms and clarifies direct criminal contempt order from civil contempt based upon fine levied.In a parentage action, father was held in direct civil contempt of court for a number of actions he committed in court, including but not limited to refusing to shut down his Ipad device, refusing to advise the Court how to shut down the device once it was confiscated, and for showing incivility and disrespect to the court. The trial court was concerned, among many things, that the father, who was self-represented, was using a device to improperly record the proceedings. The trial court issued 10 direct contempt findings and fined him $250 per contempt for a total of $2,500. He appealed and the Appellate Court held that while the trial court labeled the contempt direct civil contempt, it was actually direct criminal contempt as it ordered 10 $250 fines which can be interpreted as criminal fines.  In dicta, the Court also referenced Supreme Court Rule 44 which clearly prohibits audio recording in the court room, but cautioned against depriving self-represented litigants of the use of electronic devices in a courtroom when lawyers are regularly permitted to utilize such devices to present their cases. In re Parentage of A.C., I.C., J.C., L.C., and O.C., 2024 IL App (1st) 232052.

   In re Parentage of A.C., I.C., J.C., L.C., and O.C.

2. Trial court’s order for indirect civil contempt which ordered jail time and a monetary purge reversed.  In a parentage action where father was held in direct contempt of court (see Flash Point #1), the trial court entered a second order holding father in indirect civil contempt of court and ordered father to be committed to Cook County jail until such time as a $2500 purge was paid.  He appealed and the Appellate Court reversed due to the nature of the contempt actually being criminal contempt, not civil contempt.  Also problematic was the fact that he was ordered to pay a $2500 fine in the first contempt order, but in the second order it was repeatedly referred to as a purge rather than a fine.  While a period of jail time and a fine are valid punishments for criminal contempt, it is not acceptable to have an indefinite period of jail time subject to the payment of a purge for criminal contempt.  Therefore, the Appellate Court reversed.  The trial court also issued two further orders on the matter during the same court appearance, one a scheduling order which was upheld, and a remand/commitment/release form order which remanded father into custody.  The Court reversed the incarceration order because he was not sentenced to a valid incarceration term, and to the degree the court ordered a purge in connection with such sentence of incarceration, those portions of the orders were also reversed.  In re Parentage of A.C., I.C., J.C., L.C., and O.C., 2024 IL App (1st) 232052.

   In re Parentage of A.C., I.C., J.C., L.C., and O.C.