In re Marriage of Goodman, 2020 IL App (2d) 200289‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Goodman, 2020 IL App (2d) 200289‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Sept. 24, 2020) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Stacy Goodman. Respondent‑Appellant: Dru Goodman.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly found “good cause” to extend a two‑year plenary order of protection that (among other terms) enjoined respondent from “engaging in surveillance of the Petitioner, either personally or through his agents, assigns, or any other person or company on his behalf.”
- Standard of review: whether the extension was against the manifest weight of the evidence / an abuse of discretion.

3) Holding/outcome
- Reversed. The appellate court vacated the trial court’s March 5, 2020 order extending the plenary order of protection until March 5, 2022, concluding petitioner failed to establish the requisite “good cause” for extension.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The court emphasized that surveillance, if lawfully conducted, is not categorically prohibited by the Domestic Violence Act and is not necessarily synonymous with harassment or stalking.
- At the extension hearing the only new evidence was (a) respondent’s testimony that, based on legal advice, he would resume surveillance to investigate alleged cohabitation, and (b) petitioner’s testimony of ongoing fear. The appellate court found that this was insufficient to show a present or likely future threat of harassment or abuse that would justify extending the plenary order.
- The court required more than subjective fear or the mere assertion that surveillance might resume; there needed to be objective evidence of unlawful or threatening conduct (e.g., trespass, illegal recordings, physical threats, credible immediate danger) to satisfy “good cause.”
- Because the extension rested on speculative risk and lawful investigatory activity, the manifest‑weight standard was not met.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Draft protective orders precisely: identify and prohibit specific unlawful conduct (e.g., trespass, undocumented entry, illegal recording, threats), rather than broadly banning “surveillance,” to avoid overbreadth and appellate reversal.
- When seeking an extension, present objective, current evidence of ongoing danger or new misconduct (police reports, continuing trespass, repeated illegal recordings, explicit threats), not only past surveillance or the litigant’s subjective fear.
- Defendants asserting investigatory motives should document lawfulness (police advisories, investigator licensing, scope limits).
- Be mindful of collateral effects (e.g., FOID consequences) and preserve a clear record on the nature, legality, and harms of any surveillance to support or oppose protective relief.