2016 IL App (1st) 151189
No. 1-15-1189
Opinion filed January 26, 2016
Second Division
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ELISA SANCHEZ, ) of Cook County.
)
Petitioner-Appellant, )
) No. 14 D 80533
v. ) 14 OP 76869
)
JUAN JOSE RAMIREZ TORRES, ) The Honorable
) Lionel Jean-Baptiste,
Respondent-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding.
)
JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Neville and Simon concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 When the petitioner seeks a plenary order of protection and, after an evidentiary hearing,
the trial court finds abuse, may the court decide instead to issue a civil restraining order, which is
a less severe remedy? No. A civil restraining order carries neither the same rights nor gravitas
conferred by an order of protection. Under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 (Act),
once the trial court finds respondent has committed an abuse against petitioner, it “shall issue” an
order of protection. 750 ILCS 60/103(12), 214(a) (West 2012).
1-15-1189
¶2 In this case before us, having found abuse, the trial judge had no authority to unilaterally
enter a civil restraining order in lieu of the plenary order of protection. Accordingly, we reverse
the trial court's order and remand for entry of a plenary order of protection.
¶3 BACKGROUND
¶4 In May 2014, after a 17-year relationship and four children, Elisa Sanchez told Juan Jose
Rameriz Torres that she wanted to end their relationship. Soon after, Torres became abusive
toward Sanchez, and, in November 2014, having been subjected to several incidents of various
forms of abuse. Sanchez sought and obtained an emergency order of protection. The hearing on a
permanent and plenary order of protection occupied two days, February 10 and March 26, 2015.
¶5 Sanchez testified she told Torres in early May 2014 that she wanted to leave him.
Beginning at the end of the month and until early November, Sanchez described four occasions
on which she said Torres engaged in multiple forms of abuse which included physical, verbal,
sexual, and emotional abuse. She called the police to her home three times. The trial court
admitted a number of photographs of bruises and injuries she sustained from Torres. In addition,
Sanchez testified that Torrez repeatedly ignored a provision in the emergency order of protection
requiring him to “stay away” from Sanchez “including but not limited to refraining from
telephone calls, mail, e-mail, faxes, written notes, and communication through third parties.”
¶6 At the second day of the hearing, Sanchez called her sister, Olga Sanchez Onofre, and
then rested. Torres moved for a directed finding, which was denied. In ruling the trial court said,
“I think that there is a prima facie case that is made, that there was some reason to be concerned
by some of the examples that [Sanchez] had pointed out.”
¶7 On the stand, Torres denied almost all Sanchez’s and her sister’s testimony and accused
Sanchez of hitting him.
-2-
1-15-1189
¶8 At the close of the hearing, the trial court framed the issue as “whether or not the dad has
established a pattern of abusing mom and has committed some abuse, has established a pattern of
abuse, and whether such abuses, if the Court would define that, constitute cause for fear that
merits a plenary order of protection, a two-year order of protection that restricts dad’s interaction
with mom.” The trial court then denied the plenary order of protection, entering a civil
restraining order in its place “to help manage the relationship between mom and dad.”
¶9 The trial judge marked a pre-printed form designated "Restraining Order" on the upper
left side of the page. In the first paragraph, on the open space following "Motion for" is written
"plenary order of protection." The form contains a list of potential findings and another list of
potential orders. All the pre-printed findings were checked: (1) “Allegations of abuse have been
made against the respondent"; (2) “The Court finds the allegations credible”; (3) “The entry of a
Plenary Order of Protection may not be necessary at this time”; (4) “The Court deems it
necessary to enter this order to prevent further abuse”; and (5) “This order is entered in lieu of an
Illinois Domestic Violence Order of Protection.”
¶ 10 In the order section of the form, the trial court checked only one the five boxes. The
checked box states, “The respondent is prohibited from physical abuse, harassment, intimidation
of a dependent, interference with personal liberty, or stalking (as defined by the Act) the
petitioner.” Handwritten after "Other:" is a provision that requires Sanchez and Torres to
communicate through the “Talking Parents” program and Torres to undergo alcohol and family
counseling assessments. Next, in bold, is this statement: "Failure to comply with this order may
result in a finding of contempt or the issuance of a Plenary Order of Protection." (The copy of the
Restraining Order in the record lacks a Circuit Court form identification number.)
¶ 11 ANALYSIS
-3-
1-15-1189
¶ 12 As a preliminary matter, Torres has not filed a response brief. Nevertheless, we will
decide the merits of the appeal because the factual background is simple and the issues may be
resolved without the aid of appellee's brief. See First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis
Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976). Also, we gratefully acknowledge the amicus
curiae brief submitted by seven non-profit organizations with particular interest in domestic
violence issues and law.
¶ 13 Illinois Domestic Violence Act
¶ 14 Domestic violence happens every day in every community in our state. The victims are
individuals from all backgrounds, ages, and cultures, irrespective of marital status, religion, race,
ethnicity, education, gender, or sexual identity. The devastating and horrific effects of domestic
violence on women, children, and families lead to the Act, a law that seeks to provide victims of
domestic violence with the highest level of protection possible.
¶ 15 The Act begins with a directive that adopts a liberal construction of the Act "to promote
its underlying purposes.” 750 ILCS 60/102 (West 2012). These purposes include (i) accepting
domestic violence as a serious public crime and not a private family matter; (ii) recognizing the
extent to which domestic violence impairs families, creates intra-family conflict and violence,
and harms the well-being and safety of children; (iii) acknowledging the legal system’s failures
to deal with family violence and to permit the perpetrators escape effective prosecution or
financial liability; (iv) unmasking the criminal nature of domestic violence and the widespread
failure to appropriately protect and assist victims; (v) preventing further abuse of domestic
violence victims by promptly entering and diligently enforcing court orders; (vi) reducing the
perpetrator’s access to the victim; (vii) addressing child custody and economic support issues to
protect victims and their children from adverse consequences that often befall them; (viii)
-4-
1-15-1189
clarifying the role of law enforcement officers to quickly and effectively assist and protect
victims often at their personal peril; and (ix) enlarging the civil and criminal remedies available
for victims of domestic violence. Id.; see Moore v. Green, 219 Ill. 2d 470, 480-81 (2006).
¶ 16 Article II of the Act focuses on assisting victims of domestic violence obtain orders of
protection and streamlining the procedures they must follow. Moore, 219 Ill. 2d at 481. Article
III, “LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES,” involves enforcement of orders of
protection, including the arrest without warrants of persons who violate an order of protection.
750 ILCS 60/301 (West 2012). The Act provides that law enforcement officers “shall
immediately use all reasonable means to prevent further abuse” when they believe a person is a
victim of domestic abuse. This can involve (i) arresting the alleged perpetrator; (ii) seizing
weapons used by the alleged perpetrator; (iii) accompanying the victim to his or her residence to
remove personal effects; (iv) offering the victim information summarizing the relief available
under the Act; (v) providing the victim with a referral to a social service agency; (vi) advising
the victim on seeking medical attention and preserving evidence against the alleged perpetrator;
and (vii) transporting the victim to a medical facility or shelter, or to the trial court to obtain an
emergency order of protection. 750 ILCS 60/304(a) (West 2012); see Moore v. Green, 219 Ill. 2d
470, 481-82 (2006). The Act also lists duties for officers who investigate domestic violence calls
but do not arrest or initiate criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrator. Moore, 219 Ill.
2d at 482; 750 ILCS 60/304(b) (West 2012).
¶ 17 The three types of orders of protection are emergency, interim, or plenary. 750 ILCS
60/103(12), 217, 218, 219 (West 2012). Section 220 of the Act sets the duration of emergency
orders at not less than 14 nor more than 21 days; interim orders for up to 30 days; and plenary
orders for a fixed period of time, but not to exceed 2 years. 750 ILCS 60/220(a), (b) (West 2012).
-5-
1-15-1189
¶ 18 Trial Court’s Findings of Abuse
¶ 19 In any proceeding to obtain an order of protection, the inquiry centers on whether the
petitioner has been abused. Best v. Best, 223 Ill. 2d 342, 348 (2006). “Abuse” under section
103(1) has been broadly defined as involving physical abuse, harassment, interference with
personal liberty, or willful deprivation. 750 ILCS 60/103(1) (West 2012). Physical abuse
“includes sexual abuse and means any of the following: (i) knowing or reckless use of physical
force, confinement or restraint; (ii) knowing, repeated and unnecessary sleep deprivation; or (iii)
knowing or reckless conduct which creates an immediate risk of physical harm." 750 ILCS
60/103(14) (West 2012).
¶ 20 The standard of proof for a finding of abuse under the Act is proof by a preponderance of
the evidence. Best, 223 Ill. 2d at 348. This court may reverse the trial court's factual finding of
abuse only where that finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence presented. Id. at
348-49. The Illinois Supreme Court in Calloway v. Kinkelaar, 168 Ill. 2d 312, 323 (1995),
recognized abuse victims as “a specially protected class of individuals to whom statutorily
mandated duties are owed.” The Act “expressly contemplates the expansion of civil and criminal
remedies” for those protected persons. Id. at 324. And it seeks “to encourage active intervention
on the part of law enforcement officials in cases of intrafamily abuse.” Id.
¶ 21 Before the trial judge was a motion for a plenary order of protection. Sanchez had
testified consistently about the events that preceded her petition, events which demonstrated
escalating destructive behavior by Torres toward her. And though the trial court found all of the
prerequisites for a plenary order had been established, a markedly different type of relief—a civil
restraining order—was entered.
-6-
1-15-1189
¶ 22 Under section 214(a) of the Act, once the trial court finds that the petitioner has been
abused, “an order of protection *** shall issue.” 750 ILCS 60/214(a) (West 2012). “[S]hall
issue” is a mandatory term requiring the trial court to enter an order of protection, which carries
with it rights for the protected party. Section 214(b) provides for no less than 19 possible
remedies available to the trial court “in addition to other civil or criminal remedies available to
petitioner.” 750 ILCS 60/214(b) (West 2012). These remedies include: prohibiting abuse, neglect
or exploitation; granting exclusive possession of a residence and/or personal property; forbidding
damaging property ordering the respondent to stay away from the petitioner; requiring
counseling, payment of support, or payment for shelter services; prohibiting owning a firearm;
and granting injunctive relief to protect family members. Thus, the trial court has the ability to
tailor an order of protection to address individual circumstances and needs, improve victim
safety and hold the perpetrator accountable for his or her actions.
¶ 23 A violation of an order of protection order can incur criminal penalties, including
immediate arrest without a warrant (720 ILCS 5/12-3.4 (West 2012); 725 ILCS 5/112A-26 (West
2012); 750 ILCS 60/301(a) (West 2012)). First time violations of orders of protection are class A
misdemeanors; and, under certain circumstances, violations of orders of protection are class 4
felonies. See 720 ILCS 5/12-3.4(d) (West 2012). The Act also authorizes criminal, as well as
civil, contempt proceedings. 725 ILCS 5/112A-23 (West 2012). Additionally, an order of
protection carries automatic registration with the Law Enforcement Agencies Data System
(LEADS), enabling law enforcement officers to verify the existence of an order of protection and
make an arrest if probable cause exists to believe the order has been violated. And, as the amicus
brief points out, an order of protection affords an accessible pro se process that victims can
-7-
1-15-1189
navigate more easily and affordably. Also, as already discussed, law enforcement officers have
expanded authority to prevent further abuse.
¶ 24 In contrast, a civil restraining order involves fewer and less effective remedies. Typically,
a civil restraining order forbids the perpetrator from engaging in ordinary communication and
association with specific persons. Section 501(a)(2) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of
Marriage Act requires a party seeking a temporary restraining order to present an affidavit
showing a factual basis for relief. 750 ILCS 5/501(a)(2) (West 2012). The party must
demonstrate that he or she: (1) possesses a certain and clearly ascertainable right that needs
protection; (2) will suffer irreparable harm without the protection of the injunction; (3) has no
adequate remedy at law; and (4) is likely to succeed on the merits of the case. In re Marriage of
Centioli, 335 Ill. App. 3d 650, 654 (2002). And unlike an order of protection, a civil restraining
order does not create a criminal record for the perpetrator or prohibit the perpetrator from
lawfully possessing a firearm for purpose of employment.
¶ 25 A civil restraining order is simply no substitute for an order of protection. We hold that
the Act mandates the issuance of an order of protection once the victim makes a showing of
abuse. The trial court’s finding of abuse was not against the manifest weight of the evidence;
thus, under the Act it should have issued an order of protection. Accordingly, we reverse the trial
court’s denial of the order of protection and remand for entry of a plenary order of protection.
¶ 26 Finally, we consider it necessary to comment on a statement the trial court made directly
to Sanchez at the end of the hearing. The trial court said she had to “respect that [Torres] loves
you and he still likes you.” For victims of domestic violence this statement may appear callous
and insensitive to their pain and plight, though we quickly add that we do not believe the trial
judge meant it to be so. Nevertheless, one questions why Sanchez should “respect that [Torres]
-8-
1-15-1189
loves” her, particularly after he not only abused her, but also refused to accept any responsibility
and blamed Sanchez for his own devastating actions.
¶ 27 Domestic violence is always alien to love; it humiliates, isolates, emotionally scars,
demeans, and dehumanizes the victim, and frequently, children of the victim as well. Sanchez
suffered abuse over a period of about six months before, at the prodding of the police, she finally
sought court intervention to protect herself and her dignity. Sanchez asked for an order of
protection; she proved her entitlement to an order of protection; and the trial court should have
entered an order of protection. The Illinois Domestic Violence Act deals explicitly and boldly
with an issue that, sadly, will never be cured, but can be addressed through advocacy, awareness,
and activism.
¶ 28 We reverse and remand for entry of a two-year plenary order of protection.
-9-