In re Marriage of Bryant, 2023 IL App (1st) 221900-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Bryant, 2023 IL App (1st) 221900-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. June 20, 2023) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellee: Celeste A. Bryant. Respondent-Appellant: Jeffrey P. Bryant.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in entering a two‑year plenary order of protection under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act (750 ILCS 60/101 et seq.) after a bench trial the respondent declined to attend.
2. Whether petitioner proved “abuse” (including “harassment”) by a preponderance of the evidence as required by section 214.
3. Whether other procedural and evidentiary objections (e.g., hearsay, sufficiency of alleged threatening texts/emails) warranted reversal.

- Holding / Outcome
Affirmed. The trial court’s grant of a two‑year plenary order of protection was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Other appellate arguments were either forfeited or unreviewable.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Legal standard: a plenary order (up to two years) requires notice and proof by a preponderance that the petitioner was “abused.” “Harassment” includes knowing conduct causing emotional distress; creating a disturbance at petitioner’s workplace is presumed to cause such distress (750 ILCS 60/103(7)); appellate review is for manifest weight (Best v. Best, 223 Ill.2d 342).
- The court found petitioner credible based on her live testimony recounting threats, prior physical incidents (2016–2017), threats against family members, and the June 1 workplace incident involving police and a “scene.” The judge referenced escalating conduct, prior orders of protection, and the respondent’s abusive courtroom behavior (including profanity, threats, perjury and contempt for failing to appear in person), which supported the judge’s credibility assessment and the abuse finding.
- The respondent’s arguments that his actions were legitimate enforcement of parenting time, that texts/emails were benign notice, or that certain testimony was hearsay were rejected; many issues were forfeited by his nonappearance and failure to preserve objections.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Preserve the record: attend hearings and trials (or timely move to continue) — pro se failures to appear and disregard for express in‑person orders undermine appellate relief.
- For protection petitions, document workplace disturbances, prior incidents, corroborating witnesses, and communications (texts/emails) showing threats/harassment; emphasize statutory presumption re: workplace disturbance.
- Use case‑management orders to require in‑person appearances when necessary and seek contempt remedies if violated.
- Recognize that Rule 23 orders are nonprecedential; however, the decision underscores deference to trial court credibility findings in domestic‑violence contexts.