Mcwherter v. Hammonds
Nonprecedential Rule 23(b) written order.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it was entered on or after January 1, 2021, it may be cited for persuasive purposes under Rule 23(e)(1), but it is not binding precedent.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 Fifth District affirmed a two-year plenary order of protection entered against respondent Briggette Hammonds protecting petitioner Jasmine McWherter and Hammonds's minor daughter, Raina B. Because the pro se appellant filed a brief with no citations to the record and failed to provide a report of proceedings or bystander's report, the court presumed the circuit court ruled correctly and found the order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Key Facts
On April 4, 2025, McWherter petitioned for an order of protection on behalf of herself and Raina B., Hammonds's daughter, listing Hammonds as a family member.
The petition alleged multiple incidents of abuse and neglect by Hammonds toward Raina, and that Hammonds threatened to kill herself and flee if Raina disclosed the neglect; Raina allegedly had to sneak to contact family and was scared.
A docket entry reflects the circuit court initially denied the order of protection.
On May 19, 2025, case No. 25-OP-351 was consolidated with No. 25-OP-529, and an order of protection was entered the same day following a hearing at which Raina was represented by a guardian ad litem .
The order ran to May 19, 2027, barred abuse and required stay-away from McWherter's residence and employment and Raina's school; required Hammonds to obtain a mental health evaluation and complete recommended treatment; named McWherter primary caretaker with physical care and possession of Raina; allowed Hammonds no parenting time; and ordered surrender of firearms.
The appellate record contained no report of proceedings or bystander's report for any hearing.
Procedural History
Circuit Court of St. Clair County, No. 25-OP-351 (Hon. Maurche H. Belk). Hammonds filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2025, from the May 19, 2025, order of protection and proceeded pro se in the Appellate Court, Fifth District.
Holdings
The order of protection is affirmed; findings of abuse made after hearing evidence are reviewed under the manifest weight of the evidence standard, and with no transcript or bystander's report the court presumes the circuit court ruled correctly.
An appellant's brief lacking any citation to the record violates Rule 341(h)(6) and forfeits the arguments; forfeiture limits the parties, not the reviewing court, which here elected to reach the merits where possible.
Legal Principles
Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) — statement of facts with appropriate record references.
Hall v. Naper Gold Hospitality LLC , 2012 IL App (2d) 111151, ¶ 12 — failure to cite the record forfeits the argument.
Village of New Athens v. Smith , 2021 IL App (5th) 200257, ¶ 22 — forfeiture binds parties, not the appellate court.
Best v. Best , 223 Ill. 2d 342, 348, 350-51 (2006) — petitioner must prove abuse by a preponderance of the evidence; deference to the circuit court as factfinder.
In re Marriage of Doe , 2024 IL App (1st) 230935, ¶ 34 — manifest weight standard; reversal only where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the finding is unsupported by the evidence.
People v. Hunt , 234 Ill. 2d 49, 58 (2009) — appellant bears burden of an adequate record; doubts construed against appellant.
Smolinski v. Vojta , 363 Ill. App. 3d 752, 757-58 (2006) (quoting People v. Majer , 131 Ill. App. 3d 80, 84 (1985)) — every reasonable presumption favors the judgment appealed from.
No new legal interpretation; the order applies settled record-on-appeal and manifest weight principles to an order of protection.
Practical Implications
In OP appeals, securing a transcript or filing a Rule 323(c) bystander's report is essentially dispositive — without it, affirmance is near automatic under Hunt and Smolinski .
Appellees defending plenary orders of protection should lead with the incomplete-record presumption before addressing the merits.
Cite this order (subject to Rule 23(e)(1) limits) for the proposition that manifest weight review plus a silent record requires affirmance of abuse findings, including collateral relief such as no parenting time, physical care and possession, mental health evaluations, and firearm surrender.
Distinguishing points: a party with a complete record, or raising a purely legal/jurisdictional challenge not dependent on the evidence, is not bound by the presumption of correctness.
Note the court's discretion to excuse forfeiture of Rule 341 violations by pro se litigants "in the interest of a just result" — but doing so did not save the appellant here.
Limitations/Caveats
This is a Rule 23 order and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1); the decision text may be changed or corrected prior to rehearing. The binding disposition rests on the inadequate record; the discussion of forfeiture under Rule 341(h)(6) and the court's willingness to reach the merits is essentially dicta, as no merits review was possible. The opinion makes no findings about the underlying allegations of abuse or neglect.
Overview
The Fifth District affirmed a two-year plenary order of protection entered against respondent Briggette Hammonds protecting petitioner Jasmine McWherter and Hammonds's minor daughter, Raina B. Because the pro se appellant filed a brief with no citations to the record and failed to provide a report of proceedings or bystander's report, the court presumed the circuit court ruled correctly and found the order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Key Facts
On April 4, 2025, McWherter petitioned for an order of protection on behalf of herself and Raina B., Hammonds's daughter, listing Hammonds as a family member.
The petition alleged multiple incidents of abuse and neglect by Hammonds toward Raina, and that Hammonds threatened to kill herself and flee if Raina disclosed the neglect; Raina allegedly had to sneak to contact family and was scared.
A docket entry reflects the circuit court initially denied the order of protection.
On May 19, 2025, case No. 25-OP-351 was consolidated with No. 25-OP-529, and an order of protection was entered the same day following a hearing at which Raina was represented by a guardian ad litem .
The order ran to May 19, 2027, barred abuse and required stay-away from McWherter's residence and employment and Raina's school; required Hammonds to obtain a mental health evaluation and complete recommended treatment; named McWherter primary caretaker with physical care and possession of Raina; allowed Hammonds no parenting time; and ordered surrender of firearms.
The appellate record contained no report of proceedings or bystander's report for any hearing.
Procedural History
Circuit Court of St. Clair County, No. 25-OP-351 (Hon. Maurche H. Belk). Hammonds filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2025, from the May 19, 2025, order of protection and proceeded pro se in the Appellate Court, Fifth District.
Holdings
The order of protection is affirmed; findings of abuse made after hearing evidence are reviewed under the manifest weight of the evidence standard, and with no transcript or bystander's report the court presumes the circuit court ruled correctly.
An appellant's brief lacking any citation to the record violates Rule 341(h)(6) and forfeits the arguments; forfeiture limits the parties, not the reviewing court, which here elected to reach the merits where possible.
Legal Principles
Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) — statement of facts with appropriate record references.
Hall v. Naper Gold Hospitality LLC , 2012 IL App (2d) 111151, ¶ 12 — failure to cite the record forfeits the argument.
Village of New Athens v. Smith , 2021 IL App (5th) 200257, ¶ 22 — forfeiture binds parties, not the appellate court.
Best v. Best , 223 Ill. 2d 342, 348, 350-51 (2006) — petitioner must prove abuse by a preponderance of the evidence; deference to the circuit court as factfinder.
In re Marriage of Doe , 2024 IL App (1st) 230935, ¶ 34 — manifest weight standard; reversal only where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the finding is unsupported by the evidence.
People v. Hunt , 234 Ill. 2d 49, 58 (2009) — appellant bears burden of an adequate record; doubts construed against appellant.
Smolinski v. Vojta , 363 Ill. App. 3d 752, 757-58 (2006) (quoting People v. Majer , 131 Ill. App. 3d 80, 84 (1985)) — every reasonable presumption favors the judgment appealed from.
No new legal interpretation; the order applies settled record-on-appeal and manifest weight principles to an order of protection.
Practical Implications
In OP appeals, securing a transcript or filing a Rule 323(c) bystander's report is essentially dispositive — without it, affirmance is near automatic under Hunt and Smolinski .
Appellees defending plenary orders of protection should lead with the incomplete-record presumption before addressing the merits.
Cite this order (subject to Rule 23(e)(1) limits) for the proposition that manifest weight review plus a silent record requires affirmance of abuse findings, including collateral relief such as no parenting time, physical care and possession, mental health evaluations, and firearm surrender.
Distinguishing points: a party with a complete record, or raising a purely legal/jurisdictional challenge not dependent on the evidence, is not bound by the presumption of correctness.
Note the court's discretion to excuse forfeiture of Rule 341 violations by pro se litigants "in the interest of a just result" — but doing so did not save the appellant here.
Limitations/Caveats
This is a Rule 23 order and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1); the decision text may be changed or corrected prior to rehearing. The binding disposition rests on the inadequate record; the discussion of forfeiture under Rule 341(h)(6) and the court's willingness to reach the merits is essentially dicta, as no merits review was possible. The opinion makes no findings about the underlying allegations of abuse or neglect.
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.