In re Marriage of Portillo, 2021 IL App (3d) 200221

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Portillo, 2021 IL App (3d) 200221 (3d Dist. Sept. 23, 2021). Petitioner‑Appellee: Julie Portillo. Respondent‑Appellant: Daniel Josue Portillo Martinez.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court properly admitted out‑of‑court statements by the parties’ young children in a plenary order of protection hearing (interaction of hearsay rules under the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act and the Illinois Domestic Violence Act).
2) Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review both the plenary order of protection and a separate emergency parental‑termination order that both restricted parenting time.
3) Whether the evidence (including the children’s hearsay statements) was sufficient to support the plenary order of protection and supervised‑visitation requirements.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court reversed the plenary order of protection and remanded with directions. It held it did not have jurisdiction to review the separate emergency parental‑termination order (so that order remains unchallenged). Before any rehearing, the trial court must determine whether the children’s out‑of‑court statements were sufficiently reliable and whether the children were unavailable to testify.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The Third District focused on the admissibility prerequisites for child complainant statements offered in domestic‑relations proceedings. The court stressed that admission of such hearsay requires judicial findings demonstrating adequate safeguards of reliability (examining the time, content and circumstances of the statements) and, where the proffered statutory route requires, a showing that the child was unavailable for live testimony. The panel concluded the trial court failed to make the requisite explicit findings and instead relied on an aggregate credibility assessment and collateral allegations of prior misconduct. Because the record lacked the necessary foundational determinations as to reliability and unavailability, the evidentiary basis for the plenary protection order was inadequate. The court also applied standard jurisdictional principles to find appellant’s post‑judgment filings and notice of appeal limited review to the plenary protection order only.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- When offering child hearsay in domestic relations or protection proceedings, litigants must develop and elicit record evidence on the time, content and circumstances of the statements and, if applicable, the child’s unavailability. Request and obtain explicit written or oral findings from the trial court tying admissibility to statutory and case‑law criteria.
- Preserve objections and challenge improper admission of child hearsay contemporaneously and in post‑trial motions.
- Be careful to separately appeal distinct orders (e.g., plenary protection vs. emergency parenting orders) if you intend review of each—failure to reference an order can limit appellate jurisdiction.
- Consider calling child witnesses or establishing unavailability under the controlling statute rather than relying solely on out‑of‑court statements.