dissenting:
The majority’s attempt to justify an order of protection against Kevin evokes the observation of Professor Harold Hill in the popular musical, The Music Man: “We’ve got trouble — right here in River City — with a capital ‘T’ — and that rhymes with ‘P’ — and that stands for Pool!” The evidence of record does not support the majority’s finding that Kevin committed abuse by harassment when he broke Cory’s pool cue.
First, I believe Kevin’s conduct falls within the statutory exception for “reasonable direction of a minor child by a parent.” 750 ILCS 60/103(1) (West 2000). Kevin was providing direction when he awakened Cory and broke the pool cue. The object of his action was to instill in Cory the importance of homework and household chores visa-vis recreational activities. There is no evidence that he struck, or even touched, Cory. His action reflects a desire to teach an important lesson in a memorable manner without causing harm — arguably a less expensive lesson than enrolling Cory in a community band! The action was reasonable.
Second, the statutory definition of “harassment” requires conduct that “would cause a reasonable person emotional distress[ ] and does cause emotional distress to the petitioner.” 750 ILCS 60/103(7) (West 2000). I seriously question whether Kevin’s conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress. In any event, however, the record contains absolutely no evidence that Cory actually suffered emotional distress.
The majority relies essentially on its own conclusory statements to support its contrary finding. Indeed, the majority only musters one evidentiary fact in its analysis — Cory’s statement that Kevin “would always wake him up when he came home from drinking and would break things and throw things.” That fact does not even address how Cory felt about Kevin’s conduct. How then can the majority conclude that Cory was emotionally distressed? The conclusion is wholly unsubstantiated by the evidence of record.
Regardless of how one personally feels about Kevin’s conduct, he should not be subjected to an order of protection unless the State proves every element of its case. Since the State failed to do so here, I respectfully dissent.