In re Marriage of Donald B., 2014 IL 115463

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Donald B., 2014 IL 115463 (Ill. May 22, 2014).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Donald B.; Respondent: Roberta B.; Appellants/Intervenors: Cook County Public Guardian (on behalf of minor children) and Lisa Madigan, Attorney General.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether 750 ILCS 5/607(e) (Marriage Act) — which bars court-ordered visitation for a noncustodial parent convicted of a sex offense against a minor until successful completion of a court‑approved treatment program — is unconstitutional on its face and as applied (due process/substantive-rights challenge).
- Whether the appeal was moot after the petitioner obtained an evaluation recommending no further sex-offender treatment.
- Whether any mootness exceptions (capable of repetition yet evading review; public interest) justified adjudicating the constitutional challenge.

3. Holding/outcome
- Illinois Supreme Court: Appeal dismissed as moot. The Court vacated the circuit court’s judgment declaring section 607(e) unconstitutional, lifted the stay previously entered, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Supreme Court did not reach the constitutionality merits.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Procedural posture: After a criminal conviction (guilty plea to criminal sexual abuse, Class 4 felony) and a family-court order suspending visitation under §607(e), Donald challenged the statute. The trial court applied strict scrutiny and found §607(e) overbroad and violative of substantive and procedural due process, ordering visitation reinstated; the order was stayed pending appeal.
- Mootness development: Subsequent to briefing and oral argument, Donald underwent a sex-offender evaluation recommending no further treatment, and he moved in the trial court to reinstate visitation on that basis. That change removed any live controversy because the statutory restriction no longer applied to him.
- The Supreme Court held that no recognized exception to the mootness doctrine applied. Accordingly, the Court declined to decide the constitutional questions and vacated the trial court’s judgment (consistent with preserving the status quo where the challenged ruling has been mooted).

5. Practice implications
- For practitioners litigating constitutional challenges to statutory bars on visitation, ensure a live case or preserved exception to mootness before relying on appellate review; compliance (or administrative determinations) removing the statute’s application can moot the appeal.
- If seeking a broad, precedential ruling, consider timing (seek expedited relief before compliance), class/representative actions, or intervention by parties who remain affected to avoid mootness.
- Preserve record on necessity of treatment, administrative evaluations, and any opportunity for individualized hearings (trial court’s strict‑scrutiny reasoning was not reviewed — preserve facts and arguments for future cases).
- Account for coordination between criminal sentencing conditions and subsequent family‑court orders (treatment requirements may be imposed in different forums and affect justiciability).