In re Marriage of Bush, 2020 IL App (1st) 201035-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Bush, 2020 IL App (1st) 201035‑U (1st Dist. Oct. 26, 2020) (Rule 23 order, non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Erika Bush. Respondent‑Appellant: Edwin F. Bush.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the circuit court erred in denying respondent’s motion to recuse.
- Whether the court erred in denying respondent’s motion to strike (constitutional challenge to portions of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act).
- Whether the court erred in entering an emergency order of protection (and related limitations on parenting time).
- Procedural/jurisdictional scope of appeal given unsigned draft orders in the record.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed: denial of recusal, denial of the motion to strike, and entry of the emergency order of protection were not erroneous. The remainder of the appeal was dismissed for lack of an appropriate supporting record. (Rule 23 — not precedential.)

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdictional limits: Only the signed emergency order of protection was properly appealable. Unsigned draft orders purporting to deny other relief are ineffective; accordingly the court’s review was confined to the protection order and steps leading to it (appeal treated under Rule 307(a)(1)).
- Recusal: The motion alleging judicial bias did not establish grounds for recusal under the applicable rules; the court may summarily deny such motions when the allegations are insufficient.
- Evidence and discretionary relief: The emergency order was supported by testimony and admissions. The respondent admitted placing disparaging signs at petitioner’s building, agreed he visited the school and called the building, and the guardian ad litem and petitioner testified regarding safety/fear concerns. The court found those acts constituted harassment under the Domestic Violence Act and were sufficient to grant emergency protection. Trial court’s factual findings and exercise of discretion on emergency relief were entitled to deference.
- Constitutional challenge: The appellant’s attack on the Domestic Violence Act and circuit administrative orders was rejected procedurally (no successful motion to strike) and was not sufficient to invalidate the emergency protections in light of the record.

5. Practice implications
- Preserve a complete, signed record: unsigned draft orders are not appealable — appeals may be limited or dismissed on that basis.
- Challenge recusal motions promptly and with specific, admissible support; generalized assertions rarely succeed.
- Emergency protection hearings can be decided on admissions, witness testimony, and GAL input; courts may grant short‑term restrictions even where parenting issues are pending, so ensure evidentiary objection and cross‑examination are timely and preserved.
- If raising constitutional challenges to statutory provisions or administrative orders, present them in a motion properly before the court and develop a record; otherwise appellate review will be limited.