In re Marriage of Doe, 2024 IL App (1st) 230935

In re Marriage of Doe, 2024 IL App (1st) 230935

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Doe, 2024 IL App (1st) 230935 (1st Dist., Feb. 23, 2024).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Joan Doe (mother). Respondent/Appellant: John Doe (father). Appeal from Cook County circuit court order granting a plenary order of protection on behalf of the parties’ daughter, C.T.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s in camera interview of the alleged child-victim, conducted without permitting defense counsel to cross-examine, violated the father’s due process/right to confront adverse witnesses in a plenary order of protection proceeding under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act.
- Whether the trial court properly relied on its authority under the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act to justify the in camera procedure in a protection-order proceeding.
- Whether any error was harmless given other evidence (DCFS findings, VSIs, witness testimony).

3. Holding/outcome
- Appellate court: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded (cause remanded for a new hearing). The court held the in camera procedure, as used here, denied the father due process and was not harmless error because the case turned primarily on C.T.’s testimony.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The only direct evidence of sexual abuse was C.T.’s testimony; the trial court’s exclusion of cross-examination prevented the father from testing her credibility. That denial of the opportunity to confront and cross-examine was a violation of due process.
- The Domestic Violence Act does not contain an express provision authorizing the court to conduct in camera examinations that foreclose cross-examination; the trial court’s reliance on its prior jurisdiction in the dissolution case / Marriage Act did not justify depriving the respondent of confrontation rights in a plenary protection proceeding.
- The court emphasized that protective accommodations may be appropriate, but alternative measures (e.g., closed-circuit testimony, screening, limited cross, depositions, introducing recorded VSIs subject to confrontation rules) exist that can protect a child while preserving the respondent’s procedural rights.
- Error was not harmless because credibility of the alleged victim was central and disputed; DCFS indicated findings and other testimonial evidence did not cure the constitutional defect.

5. Practice implications (for attorneys)
- When a protection order hinges on a child’s statement, counsel should insist on preserving confrontation rights; courts must provide mechanisms to allow effective cross-examination even where victim welfare is a concern.
- If in camera testimony is proposed, litigate and seek written orders specifying how cross-examination will be accommodated (e.g., closed-circuit, protective screening, pretrial deposition) or preserve objections for appeal.
- Use alternative admissible evidence (recorded VSIs, DCFS findings, witness testimony, expert testimony) but beware that such evidence may not replace the necessity of cross-examination if the child’s credibility is the centerpiece.
- Challenge or seek clarification when a court invokes dissolution-court authority to conduct in camera procedures in standalone DV proceedings.