In re Marriage of Evans, 2021 IL App (5th) 200426-U

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Evans, No. 5-20-0426, 2021 IL App (5th) 200426-U (Ill. App. Ct. May 26, 2021). Petitioner-Appellant: Brian E. Evans. Respondent-Appellee: Theresa M. Evans.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the appeal was moot given that the plenary order of protection had a time-limited duration, and whether the public‑interest exception to mootness applied.
- Whether Theresa’s Domestic Violence Act (DVA) petition improperly asserted matters barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel because the parties had an uncontested divorce incorporating an agreed parenting plan.
- Whether the trial court abused discretion by refusing to transfer the protection proceeding to the judge who entered the dissolution judgment.
- Whether the plenary order of protection (including a temporary restriction/supervision or suspension of parenting time) was supported by sufficient evidence and complied with the DVA.

3. Holding/outcome
Affirmed. The appellate court held the public‑interest exception to mootness applied; no res judicata or collateral‑estoppel bar existed; the trial court did not err in denying transfer; and the temporary order of protection limiting/suspending appellant’s parenting time was authorized under the DVA and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Mootness/Public interest: Although the protective order had a limited duration, the court applied the public‑interest exception (issues capable of repetition yet evading review and of public importance), allowing appellate review.
- Preclusion doctrines: The earlier uncontested dissolution and incorporated parenting plan did not preclude a later DVA petition based on new allegations of harm to the children; res judicata/collateral estoppel require a prior final adjudication of the same claim or issues, which was absent here.
- Transfer: No abuse of discretion in keeping the matter with the judge who handled the emergency/protection matter (procedural discretion and docket assignment considerations).
- Evidentiary sufficiency: Trial court permissibly relied on Theresa’s testimony, photographs of bruising, daycare testimony (statements by child and discovery of marks), DCFS involvement, and admitted testimony about past domestic incidents to find a reasonable fear of harm and justify supervised or suspended parenting time under the DVA. The court limited relief to a 90‑day span and directed return to the domestic docket for permanent resolution.

5. Practice implications
- New DVA petitions can follow an uncontested dissolution where new allegations arise; preclusion defenses will often fail absent prior litigated findings.
- Preserve transfer arguments early and articulate concrete reasons.
- For temporary protective relief affecting parenting time, present contemporaneous photos, witness testimony (daycare, DCFS), and evidence of prior abusive conduct to support findings of danger to children.
- If an order expires while appealable issues exist, invoke the public‑interest exception to avoid mootness.
- Use parallel Dissolution Act motions for permanent parental‑responsibility/parenting‑time changes while pursuing short‑term DVA relief.