Stapp v. Jansen, 2013 IL App (4th) 120513

Petitioner Michaelea K. Stapp obtained a plenary order of protection against respondent Jeffrey W. Jansen on July 15, 2009.
In May 2011, Stapp moved to extend the order, alleging no material change in circumstances.
At a March 21, 2012 hearing, police testified to alleged violations of the order by contact via the Internet.
Evidence included messages from a Plentyoffish account with usernames Sotoris and Marine Panther and a dog-in-a-box image; respondent denied contacting via the site.
Respondent admitted some online activity and claimed certain usernames and emails were not used for contacting Stapp; expert testimony questioned authenticity of some exhibits.
The trial court extended the plenary order to July 7, 2013 after finding multiple contact attempts in violation of the order and good cause for extension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for extension	Stapp contends evidence showed multiple attempts to contact despite the order.	Jansen contends the communications do not establish violations or contact by him.	Evidence supported extension; findings not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Standard and credibility in extension ruling	Trial court credibility determinations favored Stapp’s account.	Evidence could be questioned by defense expert; credibility contested.	Trial court’s credibility findings and weight of testimony appropriately sustained the extension.

Best v. Best, 223 Ill. 2d 342 (2006) (manifest-weight review for protection orders)
Lutz v. Lutz, 313 Ill. App. 3d 286 (2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard for extensions under the Act)
Quinlan v. Stouffe, 355 Ill. App. 3d 830 (2005) (manifest-weight standard applied to abuse determinations)
Jackson v. Seib, 372 Ill. App. 3d 1061 (2007) (trial court’s evidentiary weight not reversed on appeal)
Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207 (1995) (principle against substituting own judgment for trial court on credibility)