Two years after an acrimonious divorce
including allegation of threats, sexual abuse, and damaging automobiles with
urine, feces, and vomit, Judith and Hanan Kiferbaum filed petitions seeking
orders of protection against each other. The trial judge set the
“cross-petitions” for hearing on January 30, 2013. The judge conducted a
hearing on Hanan’s petition first because he filed it two weeks earlier than Judith.
After granting Hanan’s petition, the judge dismissed Judith’s petition
considering it a request for mutual orders of protection which were barred by
Section 215. On appeal, Judith claimed that she requested a “correlative” order
of protection, not a “mutual” order of protection.
In siding with Judith, the appellate court
first noted that no court had previously considered the difference between
mutual and correlative orders and that neither term was defined in the Illinois
Domestic Violence Act. The court when on to characterize mutual orders as
typically appearing in a single document, based on a single petition, and
entered even if one party did not seek an order of protection. The court found
good reason for strictly prohibiting mutual orders because they tend to violate
due process, exacerbate violence, and are difficult for the police to enforce.
The court did not find the same drawbacks with
correlative orders because under the statute they can only be obtained when
separate written petitions are filed, both parties prove past abuse, both parties give prior notice (unless
excused), and the trial court enters
separate orders justifying each remedy
granted. The court concluded by stating that if the “clear roadmap” set out by
Section 215 is followed, correlative orders of protection, while disfavored, remain
an available remedy.
No comments:
Post a Comment