Wife filed A verified petition for A plenary order of protection against her husband of 45 years.   She alleged a history of verbal, emotional, and physical abuse that spanned decades.  But, it recently increased in frequency and severity. Following a hearing on the petition, the court granted wife’s petition.

It made several findings as to the credibility of witnesses. The court, in its written order, indicated the abuse was likely to continue in the absence of an order of protection.

Husband appealed.  He contended that the court failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 by failing to find that (1) Husband’s conduct, unless prohibited, is likely to cause irreparable harm or continued abuse. And (2) the order of protection is necessary to protect wife.

The Appellate Court stated that the Trial Court had complied with statutory requirements.  It had noted the nature, frequency, severity, and pattern of husband’s abuse.

Husband first became physical with wife when he broke her eye socket in 1979. Their daughter testified that she remembered another five instances of the husband physically abusing the wife.  Wife and the daughter told the court how husband would use wife’s vehicle to exert power over her, whether that be through disabling the vehicle or taking her keys.

Wife described husband’s practice of publicly humiliating her and privately threatening to harm or kill her. Wife genuinely feared for her life. Husband tracked her movements through GPS devices and monitoring her schedule. Wife could not escape, even at work, as husband would show up and harass her.

Dibenedetto v. Dibenedetto, 2019 IL App (3d) 180761 (November 12, 2019)