Landmann v. Landmann
2019 IL App (5th) 180137
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Rachel Landmann filed for an emergency ex parte order of protection under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act after her child O.L. returned from visitation with Katlin Landmann with a red, bruised mark; petitioner alleged respondent spanked O.L. 27 times.
- Hospital staff photographed O.L.’s injuries and contacted police; the petitioner testified to O.L.’s out-of-court statement that the respondent spanked her 27 times (admitted over hearsay objection).
- Respondent testified he spanked O.L. three times as discipline for not doing homework and denied causing injury or knowing whether marks remained. He also asserted the spanking was reasonable parental direction and requested an adverse inference for missing photographs.
- The trial court entered a one-year plenary order of protection finding the respondent had abused the petitioner and/or children and that the relief was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
- On appeal the respondent challenged hearsay admission, failure to apply an adverse inference, and sufficiency of findings under 750 ILCS 60/214(c)(3); the appellate court reviewed under the public-interest mootness exception because the plenary order expired.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made the written/oral findings required by 750 ILCS 60/214(c)(3)(i) | Petitioner relied on the court’s oral statement that it "heard the evidence and considered credibility" and the checked findings on the form order | Respondent argued the court failed to set forth consideration of statutory "relevant factors" (nature, frequency, severity, likelihood of future abuse, danger to minors) in writing or on the record | Reversed and vacated: court failed to make the specific findings required by section 214(c)(3)(i) in writing or on the record |
| Admissibility of child’s out-of-court statement (hearsay) | Petitioner offered O.L.’s statement recounting the spanking as evidence of abuse | Respondent objected as hearsay and disputed the statement’s reliability | Court did not reach merits on hearsay because disposition controlled by failure to make statutory findings; appellate decision reversed on statutory findings ground |
| Application of adverse inference for missing photographs | Petitioner had hospital photos but did not produce them at hearing; petitioner did not concede non-production | Respondent sought adverse inference that photos would undermine petitioner’s claims | Appellate court did not reach merits due to reversal on statutory findings ground |
| Whether spanking constituted abuse vs. reasonable parental discipline | Petitioner argued bruising and hospital treatment showed abuse causing lasting injury | Respondent argued spanking was reasonable parental direction excluded from "abuse" under the statute | Appellate court did not resolve substantive abuse question; vacated order for lack of statutory findings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.T., 221 Ill. 2d 338 (Ill. 2006) (describing mootness doctrine and exceptions)
- Hedrick-Koroll v. Bagley, 352 Ill. App. 3d 590 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (plenary order expiration renders appeal moot absent exception)
- Whitten v. Whitten, 292 Ill. App. 3d 780 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (public-interest exception to mootness)
- Best v. Best, 223 Ill. 2d 342 (Ill. 2006) (central inquiry in protection proceedings is whether petitioner was abused)
- People ex rel. Minteer v. Kozin, 297 Ill. App. 3d 1038 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (trial court must make statutory findings when issuing protection orders)