Graham v. Van Rengen
2024 IL App (2d) 230611
Ill. App. Ct.2024Background
- Brian and Andrea Graham (married, with four children) sought and obtained two-year plenary orders of protection against Andrea’s mother, Carol A. Van Rengen (respondent), due to alleged ongoing harassment.
- The orders barred respondent from all contact with the Grahams and from being within 500 feet of them and designated locations (home, children’s school, etc.).
- Claims included repeated unwanted attempts at contact (calls, emails), uninvited appearances at family/school events, and driving by their home, causing distress to the children.
- Upon expiration, Brian and Andrea moved to extend the orders for another two years, citing concerns of resumed harassment, while respondent contested the extension.
- The trial court granted the extensions; respondent appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence for “good cause” and failure to make statutorily required findings.
Issues
| Issue | Graham's Argument | Van Rengen's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for Extending Orders | Respondent’s past harassment and lack of changed circumstances justify extension under applicable standards | Extensions require “good cause”; new acts or violations are required for contested motions | "Good cause" not required for fixed-term (≤2 years) extensions; compliance with §219 suffices |
| Sufficiency of Evidence | Harassment and emotional distress to family continue or would resume without an order | No evidence of new abuse/harassment or violation of orders; circumstances unchanged | Trial court's extension not against manifest weight; evidence supported abuse/harassment finding |
| Adequacy of Trial Court’s Findings | Trial court considered all relevant statutory factors in record | Lack of explicit statutory findings in written order requires reversal | Record shows court considered required factors; no reversal/remand required |
| Reliance on Past Conduct | Past conduct can support extension if risk of recurrence remains | Only new or continued conduct warrants extension | Past behavior plus present risk suffice under statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Best v. Best, 223 Ill. 2d 342 (2006) (sets standard of proof by preponderance of the evidence for orders of protection)
- State Bank of Cherry v. CGB Enters., Inc., 2013 IL 113836 (Illinois Supreme Court guidance on statutory construction)
- Stapp v. Jansen, 2013 IL App (4th) 120513 (on methods of proof for contested vs. uncontested extensions of orders of protection)
- Landmann v. Landmann, 2019 IL App (5th) 180137 (trial court must make statutory findings when issuing orders of protection)