In re Marriage of Botero, 2023 IL App (1st) 221576-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Botero, 2023 IL App (1st) 221576‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. May 30, 2023) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑appellee: Angela Botero. Respondent‑appellant: Jose Transito Roque.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion or entered a decision against the manifest weight of the evidence by extending a two‑year plenary order of protection for an additional two years.
2) What quantum and recency of evidence is required to show “good cause” (continued risk of abuse) to justify an extension of a plenary order under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court reversed and vacated the circuit court’s September 23, 2022 order extending the plenary order of protection. The extension was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
The trial court originally entered a two‑year plenary order based on Angela’s testimony and credibility findings. When she sought a two‑year extension, her proof consisted largely of: (a) prior allegations and the existing plenary order, (b) generalized statements that she remained fearful, (c) uncorroborated assertions (anonymous calls, alleged bullets, water shutoff) without police reports, photographs, or dates, and (d) concern that counsel had disclosed her address. Jose presented evidence that he had not contacted her since the original order and denied owning weapons or threatening her. The appellate panel held that the mere passage of time, the fact of a prior plenary order, or subjective fear alone did not establish the necessary good cause for an extension. The court emphasized that the trial court improperly relied on earlier findings of abuse and the petitioner’s generalized fear rather than recent, specific, corroborated evidence of continued risk. Given the sparse, non‑specific proof and Jose’s compliance with the initial order, the extension was not supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Practice implications for attorneys
- When seeking an extension of a plenary order, present recent, specific, corroborated evidence of continued risk (police reports, contemporaneous communications, witnesses, medical records, documented threats, proof of access to weapons).
- Avoid relying solely on prior orders or subjective fear; the court expects proof of current danger/good cause.
- Defense counsel should develop a record of compliance and challenge lack of contemporaneous corroboration.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 (non‑precedential) decision but persuasive on evidentiary sufficiency for extensions of protection orders.