The divorce had already taken place. The wife obtained a two-year order of protection. It restrained the husband from abusing, harassing, intimidating, or interfering with the personal liberty of the parties’ daughter.

Husband appealed. He contended that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in granting the order of protection because the evidence did not support a finding of harassment. And (2) any action to restrict his contact should have been taken under the *existing dissolution action rather than by obtaining an order of protection.” The Appellate Court reversed.

The daughter had testified that she went to her father’s house for visitation. She informed him that she did not enjoy spending time at his house. She wanted to go back to her mother’s house. According to the daughter, her father told her that she was insane. He said he was going to take her to a hospital.

The daughter became afraid. She tried to call her mother on the phone. She said when she tried to make the phone call, her father ripped the phone off of the wall. He told her that she was grounded.

The daughter later left the house to walk back to her mother’s house. According to the daughter, the father followed her outside. He held her arms behind her back. He pushed her in the door. He pushed her into her room. Father also tried to punch her twice. But, but she avoided contact by moving backward. The daughter testified that she suffered a bruise on her arm as a result of this incident.

The primary purpose of the Domestic Violence Act is to aid victims of domestic violence and to prevent further violence. Obtaining an order of protection is not the proper procedure for resolving a child custody or visitation issues. Those issues should be resolved under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act

The wife admitted that she obtained the order of protection to temporarily suspend visitation. The daughter also indicated that the order of protection was sought so that she could see her father only when she wanted to see him. The

The Domestic Violence Act is not the appropriate vehicle for resolving such issues. We note that the order of protection did not restrict the husband’s visitation or contact with the daughter. The court narrowly drafted the order to prohibit physical abuse, harassment, interference with personal liberty, or intimidation.

Nevertheless, based on this record, we believe that wife misused the Domestic Violence Act. She had sought to alter her husband’s visitation with her daughter.

For that reason, and because we find that no harassment occurred, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court and vacate the order of protection.

Radke v. Radke, 347 Ill.App.3d 1123.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Buffalo Grove Law Offices