In re Marriage of Langhans, 2021 IL App (2d) 200613-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Langhans, 2021 IL App (2d) 200613‑U (2d Dist. Sept. 8, 2021) (Rule 23 order, non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Tressa M. Langhans. Respondent‑Appellant: Ronald Lee Langhans, Jr.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred under 735 ILCS 5/8‑2601 by admitting or relying on out‑of‑court statements of children under 13 without required findings/procedures.
- Whether the court failed to make statutory findings required by the Illinois Domestic Violence Act (750 ILCS 60/214(c)(3)) when issuing a plenary order of protection and firearm restriction (214(b)(14.5)(a)).
- Whether the plenary order (including firearms prohibition and awarding possession of marital home) was against the manifest weight of the evidence; whether the court compared relative hardships under 214(c)(2).
- Whether the court abused its discretion in denying reconsideration.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s plenary order of protection and denial of the motion to reconsider.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The trial court’s oral ruling showed it relied primarily on the parties’ testimony and admissions (including respondent’s admissions of yelling, property damage, and acknowledgment that the children experienced tension/fear), not on out‑of‑court statements from the children or a school counselor. The appellate court accepted the trial court’s statement that it did not rely on hearsay under §8‑2601, rejecting the Arika M. argument asserted by appellant.
- The court found sufficient evidence of verbal abuse and property damage constituting harassment and causing petitioner distress—adequate statutory basis for a plenary protection order.
- The firearms restriction was supported by the court’s express finding (checked R14.5 on the form) that there was a danger of illegal use of firearms; the record showed practical instructions were given for surrender and FOID procedures.
- On property possession, the trial court inquired about incomes/expenses (respondent as primary earner, mortgage amount, motel costs) and awarded the home to petitioner; the appellate court found no reversible error or failure to balance hardships.

5) Practice implications for family attorneys
- Preserve the record: ensure transcripts of emergency hearings and any bystander reports are in the record.
- If relying on child out‑of‑court statements, follow §8‑2601 procedures and make clear, contemporaneous findings on the record. If not relying on them, state that expressly.
- When seeking or opposing firearm prohibitions, obtain explicit court findings on danger/risk and document practical surrender/FOID instructions.
- When litigating possession of the family home under a protection order, ensure the court makes and records a comparative hardship analysis (income, housing alternatives, mortgage, child welfare) rather than only checking form boxes.