In re Order of Protection: Carrillo, 2022 IL App (1st) 210962-UB

Case citation and parties
- In re Order of Protection: Carrillo, 2022 IL App (1st) 210962-UB (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Dec. 19, 2022).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Colleen Carrillo. Respondent/Appellant: Enrique Teran.

Key legal issues
- Whether the appeal was moot given expiration of the plenary protective order and whether the public‑interest exception to mootness applies.
- Whether the trial judge abused discretion by questioning the petitioner at the plenary hearing (improperly acting as an advocate).
- Whether the evidence was sufficient under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act to support a one‑year plenary order of protection.

Holding / outcome
- The court applied the public‑interest exception to review the otherwise moot appeal.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in questioning the petitioner; the questioning was neutral, clarificatory, and proper.
- There was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding of abuse; the one‑year plenary order of protection was affirmed.

Significant legal reasoning
- Mootness: Although the plenary order expired, the court invoked the public‑interest exception (consistent with precedent) because the issues present recurring public importance and collateral consequences.
- Judge questioning witnesses: Trial judges have broad but limited discretion to question witnesses to elicit truth, clarify ambiguities, and illuminate material issues; they must not assume the role of advocate. The appellate court reviews such questioning for abuse of discretion. Here, the judge’s inquiries focused on timing, prior incidents, communications (texts, social‑media contacts, photo of petitioner’s car), and physical allegations—all directly relevant to statutory abuse elements—and were neither partisan nor leading.
- Sufficiency of evidence: Abuse findings under the Domestic Violence Act are reviewed under the manifest‑weight‑of‑the‑evidence standard. The record, including petitioner’s testimony, police reports, stalking/harassment acts, prior physical incidents, and the judge’s credibility determinations, supported the order. Appellate court will not reweigh credibility where the trial court was best positioned to observe witnesses.

Practice implications (for practitioners)
- Preserve objections if you believe a judge exceeded neutral questioning; appellate review is deferential.
- Trial judges may and should clarify testimony when ambiguity exists—counsel should anticipate follow‑up and address scope objections timely.
- When appealing expired protective orders, invoke the public‑interest exception and show recurring public consequences.
- Appellate briefs must comply with Rule 341; avoid argumentative or inaccurate factual recitations—courts may refuse to consider them.
- Where a petitioner is pro se, expect courts to ensure clarity of factual basis but watch for any appearance of advocacy; counsel should frame cross‑examination to expose inconsistencies without overreliance on objections to judicial inquiry.