Reina H. v. Rotwaun C.
Nonprecedential Rule 23(b) written order. Because it was entered on or after January 1, 2021, it may be cited for persuasive purposes under Rule 23(e)(1), but it is not binding precedent. Status is based on the stored -U public-domain citation; verify the official disposition and later docket history.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Fourth District affirmed the denial of a father's motion to vacate a default two-year plenary order of protection entered when he failed to appear. The court held the denial was not an abuse of discretion given an incomplete record and the father's failure to present any evidence at the subsequent hearing, and that his challenges to the trial court's in camera interview of the 12-year-old child were barred by invited error because he consented to the interview.
Key Facts
In July 2025, petitioner filed a pro se emergency petition alleging respondent verbally abused and physically threatened the parties' child, A.C.; the petition was granted.
On September 16, 2025, the trial court entered a two-year plenary order of protection by default after respondent failed to appear; it protected petitioner and A.C., denied respondent parenting time, and required a mental health evaluation and follow-up treatment.
Respondent moved to vacate the next day; the matter was continued several times and heard April 7, 2026. No transcript of that hearing (or of the September 16, 2025, proceeding) was provided on appeal.
Per the written order, petitioner testified and submitted text messages showing A.C. feared respondent; respondent neither testified nor submitted evidence.
On April 9, 2026, with both counsel present beforehand and with the parties' stated consent, the court interviewed 12-year-old A.C. in chambers. A.C. said she did not want to see respondent "right now," described arguments, an incident where respondent said he wished she had died in a motorcycle accident rather than her brother, and a remark about "flip[ping] the car."
On April 23, 2026, the court denied the motion, kept the plenary order in effect, and allowed respondent to petition for parenting time after completing anger management and a mental health evaluation with recommended treatment.
Petitioner filed no appellee's brief; the court proceeded under Thomas v. Koe because the record was simple.
Procedural History
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria County (No. 25OP878, Judge Lisa Yvette Wilson) to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District. The appeal was accelerated under Rule 311(a); it was dismissed in May 2026 for failure to file a docketing statement, reinstated after compliance in July 2026, and the court found good cause for issuing its decision after the 150-day deadline.
Holdings
Denial of the motion to vacate the default plenary order of protection was not an abuse of discretion and did not deny substantial justice; absent transcripts, the reviewing court presumes a sufficient factual basis ( Foutch v. O'Bryant ).
Respondent's objections to the section 604.10(a) in camera interview, including the inability to cross-examine the child, were barred by the invited error doctrine because he consented to the interview; his claim that the court exceeded the scope of his agreement was unsupported by the record.
The request for remand for a new evidentiary hearing failed; respondent had the chance to testify and present evidence and chose not to, and the remaining contentions were redundant.
Legal Principles
735 ILCS 5/2-1301(e) (West 2024) (discretion to set aside defaults); 750 ILCS 5/604.10(a) (West 2024) (in-chambers interview limited to ascertaining the child's wishes on allocation of parental responsibilities); 750 ILCS 60/101 et seq. (West 2024). Cases: In re Haley D. , 2011 IL 110886; Litvak v. Black , 2019 IL App (1st) 181707, ¶ 23; People v. Morgan , 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 23; Foutch v. O'Bryant , 99 Ill. 2d 389; In re Marriage of Jessica F. , 2024 IL App (4th) 231264; In re Marriage of Doe , 2024 IL App (1st) 230935; In re Detention of Swope , 213 Ill. 2d 210; Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. , 213 Ill. 2d 307; People v. Wachter , 2026 IL App (2d) 250318; Thomas v. Koe , 395 Ill. App. 3d 570; First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp. , 63 Ill. 2d 128; O'Brien v. Walker , 49 Ill. App. 3d 940; Insurance Benefit Group, Inc. v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co. , 2017 IL App (1st) 162808. Clarification: Doe is limited where the objecting party consented to the interview.
Practical Implications
Never consent to an in camera child interview in an order of protection case unless you accept the loss of cross-examination; consent converts potential Doe error into invited error.
If you do consent, place the agreed scope of the interview on the record—unsupported scope arguments fail.
Order transcripts of every hearing; Foutch presumptions are outcome-determinative in order of protection appeals.
A respondent must actually put on evidence at the vacatur hearing; declining to testify undermines later remand requests.
Distinguish this case where the court's questioning strays into adjudicating historical abuse allegations rather than the child's wishes, and where consent was absent or objected to.
Built-in review conditions (evaluation/treatment, then petition for parenting time) help defend a total parenting-time denial as reasonable.
Limitations/Caveats
Rule 23 order—not precedential except under Rule 23(e)(1). The alternative merits discussion (that the interview genuinely sought A.C.'s wishes) and the Rule 311(a) good-cause analysis are secondary to the dispositive invited-error and Foutch grounds; the court also expressly assumed error arguendo.
Overview
The Fourth District affirmed the denial of a father's motion to vacate a default two-year plenary order of protection entered when he failed to appear. The court held the denial was not an abuse of discretion given an incomplete record and the father's failure to present any evidence at the subsequent hearing, and that his challenges to the trial court's in camera interview of the 12-year-old child were barred by invited error because he consented to the interview.
Key Facts
In July 2025, petitioner filed a pro se emergency petition alleging respondent verbally abused and physically threatened the parties' child, A.C.; the petition was granted.
On September 16, 2025, the trial court entered a two-year plenary order of protection by default after respondent failed to appear; it protected petitioner and A.C., denied respondent parenting time, and required a mental health evaluation and follow-up treatment.
Respondent moved to vacate the next day; the matter was continued several times and heard April 7, 2026. No transcript of that hearing (or of the September 16, 2025, proceeding) was provided on appeal.
Per the written order, petitioner testified and submitted text messages showing A.C. feared respondent; respondent neither testified nor submitted evidence.
On April 9, 2026, with both counsel present beforehand and with the parties' stated consent, the court interviewed 12-year-old A.C. in chambers. A.C. said she did not want to see respondent "right now," described arguments, an incident where respondent said he wished she had died in a motorcycle accident rather than her brother, and a remark about "flip[ping] the car."
On April 23, 2026, the court denied the motion, kept the plenary order in effect, and allowed respondent to petition for parenting time after completing anger management and a mental health evaluation with recommended treatment.
Petitioner filed no appellee's brief; the court proceeded under Thomas v. Koe because the record was simple.
Procedural History
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria County (No. 25OP878, Judge Lisa Yvette Wilson) to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District. The appeal was accelerated under Rule 311(a); it was dismissed in May 2026 for failure to file a docketing statement, reinstated after compliance in July 2026, and the court found good cause for issuing its decision after the 150-day deadline.
Holdings
Denial of the motion to vacate the default plenary order of protection was not an abuse of discretion and did not deny substantial justice; absent transcripts, the reviewing court presumes a sufficient factual basis ( Foutch v. O'Bryant ).
Respondent's objections to the section 604.10(a) in camera interview, including the inability to cross-examine the child, were barred by the invited error doctrine because he consented to the interview; his claim that the court exceeded the scope of his agreement was unsupported by the record.
The request for remand for a new evidentiary hearing failed; respondent had the chance to testify and present evidence and chose not to, and the remaining contentions were redundant.
Legal Principles
735 ILCS 5/2-1301(e) (West 2024) (discretion to set aside defaults); 750 ILCS 5/604.10(a) (West 2024) (in-chambers interview limited to ascertaining the child's wishes on allocation of parental responsibilities); 750 ILCS 60/101 et seq. (West 2024). Cases: In re Haley D. , 2011 IL 110886; Litvak v. Black , 2019 IL App (1st) 181707, ¶ 23; People v. Morgan , 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 23; Foutch v. O'Bryant , 99 Ill. 2d 389; In re Marriage of Jessica F. , 2024 IL App (4th) 231264; In re Marriage of Doe , 2024 IL App (1st) 230935; In re Detention of Swope , 213 Ill. 2d 210; Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. , 213 Ill. 2d 307; People v. Wachter , 2026 IL App (2d) 250318; Thomas v. Koe , 395 Ill. App. 3d 570; First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp. , 63 Ill. 2d 128; O'Brien v. Walker , 49 Ill. App. 3d 940; Insurance Benefit Group, Inc. v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co. , 2017 IL App (1st) 162808. Clarification: Doe is limited where the objecting party consented to the interview.
Practical Implications
Never consent to an in camera child interview in an order of protection case unless you accept the loss of cross-examination; consent converts potential Doe error into invited error.
If you do consent, place the agreed scope of the interview on the record—unsupported scope arguments fail.
Order transcripts of every hearing; Foutch presumptions are outcome-determinative in order of protection appeals.
A respondent must actually put on evidence at the vacatur hearing; declining to testify undermines later remand requests.
Distinguish this case where the court's questioning strays into adjudicating historical abuse allegations rather than the child's wishes, and where consent was absent or objected to.
Built-in review conditions (evaluation/treatment, then petition for parenting time) help defend a total parenting-time denial as reasonable.
Limitations/Caveats
Rule 23 order—not precedential except under Rule 23(e)(1). The alternative merits discussion (that the interview genuinely sought A.C.'s wishes) and the Rule 311(a) good-cause analysis are secondary to the dispositive invited-error and Foutch grounds; the court also expressly assumed error arguendo.
Disclaimer: This case summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. Always consult with a licensed attorney for specific legal questions.
Questions About a Safety-Related Family Law Matter?
If there is immediate danger, call 911. Otherwise, start a conflict-check intake and flag any urgent court date or safety issue.
Start Conflict-Check IntakeLegal Assistant
This tool answers general questions about the text of this summary. It does not give legal advice, it does not know the facts of your case, and its answers may be wrong.
Disclaimer: This AI analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Always verify any AI-generated content against the official court opinion.