In re Order of Protection of Cheryl B., 2023 IL App (1st) 221240-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Order of Protection of Cheryl B. on Behalf of O.B., a Minor, No. 1-22-1240 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Div. Jan. 12, 2023) (Rule 23 order, non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: Cheryl B. (on behalf of minor O.B.). Respondent‑Appellant: Ryan B.

1) Key legal issues
- Whether video recordings of the minor (recorded by mother’s partner) were improperly admitted because they violated child pornography or eavesdropping statutes.
- Whether the trial court erred in factual findings after an in camera review of the videos.
- Whether the trial court’s ultimate finding that the father sexually abused the child (and entry of a two‑year plenary order of protection) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

2) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The plenary order of protection (two years’ no‑contact for respondent) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

3) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Parties’ stipulation: The parties had entered an agreed order before the plenary hearing stipulating that the minor would be deemed unavailable, that the two videos could be played in camera and admitted without objection to admissibility, and that the mother and the recorder (Michael C.) could testify about the minor’s statements. The respondent expressly reserved only cross‑examination and impeachment rights. The appellate court relied on that stipulation — which effectively foreclosed statutory‑violation objections to the recordings — and treated the recordings and related testimony as properly before the court.
- In camera review and trial court credibility: The trial court viewed the videos in camera, heard testimony (mother, recorder, custody evaluator Deborah Link, and others), and found multiple corroborating indicators (video content showing the child describing/demonstrating contact, observed redness/bruising, changes in the child’s behavior, statements to mother, and the custody evaluator’s prior observations about respondent’s mental health and its effects). The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility assessments and factual findings, concluding the evidence corroborated the child’s outcry and supported the protection order.

4) Practice implications
- Stipulations are powerful: an agreed stipulation admitting sensitive recordings can defeat later evidentiary/statutory objections — but counsel should understand the breadth and waiver consequences before consenting.
- In camera review is appropriate for sensitive recordings of minors; trial courts’ credibility and contemporaneous assessments receive significant appellate deference in manifest‑weight review.
- Corroboration matters: physical signs, behavioral changes, recorded statements, and corroborative testimony (including custody evaluators) can collectively sustain a protection order even when criminal investigations close without charges.
- Risk management: when handling domestic relations disputes with mental‑health issues, document behavioral/physical corroboration and carefully negotiate stipulations about evidence and witness availability.