In re Marriage of Donald B.
2014 IL 115463
Ill.2014Background
- Donald B. challenged the facial and applied constitutionality of section 607(e) of the Marriage Act after his visitation was suspended due to a sex-offense conviction.
- Section 607(e) denies visitation to noncustodial parents convicted of sex offenses against a victim under 18 until they complete a court-approved treatment program.
- Donald was sentenced to probation and later evaluated; the evaluator concluded no further sex-offender treatment was indicated.
- Donald completed probation on August 30, 2013, and underwent a court-ordered evaluation with no treatment recommended.
- The circuit court held section 607(e) unconstitutional; this court stayed the circuit court’s ruling pending appeal, and the case was consolidated with an appeal by the Public Guardian and the Attorney General.
- The Supreme Court ultimately held the appeal moot and vacated the circuit court’s ruling, remanding for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot due to Donald's completion of the program requirements? | Donald | Public Guardian/Attorney General | Yes; the appeal is moot because 607(e) no longer bars visitation. |
| Should the mootness issue be resolved under a public-interest exception? | Donald and Public Guardian | Attorney General | No; the public-interest exception does not apply. |
| How should 'a treatment program approved by the court' be interpreted in 607(e)? | Donald | Public Guardian/Attorney General | The court interpreted the provision as satisfied by completion of the court-approved evaluation with no further treatment recommended. |
| Does completion of probation and a provider's evaluation render §607(e) unconstitutional as applied to Donald? | Donald | Public Guardian/Attorney General | As applied, Donald's compliance renders the visitation restriction inoperable; constitutional ruling moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Felzak v. Hruby, 226 Ill. 2d 382 (Ill. 2007) (public interest exception to mootness requires narrow, specific criteria)
- In re India B., 202 Ill. 2d 522 (Ill. 2002) (nature of advisory opinions and public-interest considerations in mootness)
- In re Adoption of Walgreen, 186 Ill. 2d 362 (Ill. 1999) (limits on using moot questions to govern future cases)
- Bartlow v. Costigan, 2014 IL 115152 (Ill. 2014) (mootness general rule; exceptions may apply)
- In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345 (Ill. 2009) (mootness and advisory opinions considerations in family law)