Fricke v. Jones
| Decision Date | 09 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 5-20-0044 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (5th) 200044,198 N.E.3d 171,459 Ill.Dec. 381 |
| Parties | Jeromy FRICKE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Aaron JONES, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Jonathan C. Kibler, of Southern Illinois Law Center, LLC, of Carbondale, for appellant.
No brief filed for appellee.
PRESIDING JUSTICE BOIE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion ¶ 1 The petitioner, Jeromy Fricke, filed a petition pursuant to the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 (Domestic Violence Act) ( 750 ILCS 60/101 et seq. (West 2018)), requesting the circuit court to enter an emergency order of protection and a plenary order of protection against the respondent, Aaron Jones. Jones is the maternal grandfather of Fricke's four minor children, and Fricke sought protection of the minor children from Jones. The circuit court entered an ex parte emergency order of protection naming the minor children as persons protected under the order. The circuit court subsequently granted multiple continuances of the hearing on Fricke's request for a plenary order of protection (plenary hearing), and the circuit court extended the emergency order of protection to each new plenary hearing date. Jones appeals from three interlocutory orders entered by the circuit court pertaining to the expiration date of the emergency order of protection. For the following reasons, we dismiss Jones's appeal from one of the interlocutory orders and affirm the other two of the interlocutory orders.
¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 3 On August 8, 2019, Fricke filed a petition against Jones pursuant to the Domestic Violence Act, seeking emergency and plenary orders of protection for his four children. Fricke alleged in his petition that Jones was physically and verbally abusive to the children. On the same day that Fricke filed his petition, the circuit court entered an emergency order of protection directing Jones to, among other things, stay away from his minor grandchildren. The circuit court initially set the emergency order of protection to expire on August 28, 2019, and scheduled an August 28, 2019, hearing on Fricke's request for a plenary order of protection.
¶ 4 Counsel for Jones filed an entry of appearance on August 27, 2019. The next day, the parties appeared in court and agreed to continue the plenary hearing to September 18, 2019, to allow Jones's attorney time to prepare for the hearing. The circuit court, therefore, extended the emergency order of protection to September 18, 2019, without objection.
¶ 5 On September 18, 2019, the parties appeared in court for the plenary hearing, and the circuit court's docket entry indicates that the parties told the circuit court that they needed a half-day hearing, given the number of witnesses and the length of their testimony. The circuit court's docket entry states, "Case shall be reset for 10/7/19 at 9:00 a.m." The docket entry further states that Jones's attorney objected to the hearing date, but the record does not state the grounds for the objection, and there is no transcript of this hearing in the record. The circuit court's September 18, 2019, order extending the emergency order of protection to October 7, 2019, is not at issue in this appeal.
¶ 6 Prior to the October 7, 2019, hearing, Fricke gave Jones notice of his intent to present evidence at the plenary hearing of hearsay statements made by the children. Therefore, on October 7, 2019, Jones filed a motion in limine seeking to prohibit Fricke from offering the hearsay statements into evidence. The parties apparently agreed off the record to an immediate hearing on the admissibility of the hearsay statements. The record on appeal does not include a transcript of the October 7, 2019, hearing, but the circuit court's October 7, 2019, docket entry shows that the circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the issues stemming from Jones's motion in limine. The circuit court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. The circuit court's docket entry indicates that the circuit court then continued the plenary hearing to October 10, 2019, without objection.
¶ 7 On October 10, 2019, Jones filed a second motion in limine objecting to additional hearsay statements. The parties appeared in court on October 10, 2019, to begin the plenary hearing, but Fricke's attorney requested more time to respond to Jones's new motion in limine. Over Jones's objection, the circuit court granted Fricke seven days to respond to the motion in limine and continued the plenary hearing to October 28, 2019. In its docket entry, the circuit court wrote that it extended the emergency order of protection to the date of the next hearing.
¶ 8 The parties appeared in court on October 28, 2019. The circuit court heard arguments on Jones's second motion in limine and granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. In its docket entry, the circuit court scheduled the plenary hearing to begin on November 18, 2019, for a half-day hearing. The circuit court also set aside the morning of December 2, 2019, and the entire day on December 23, 2019, for additional proceedings if needed for the plenary hearing. On October 28, 2019, the circuit court also entered a written order extending the emergency order of protection to November 18, 2019. The record does not reflect any objection to the circuit court's extension of the emergency order of protection to November 18, 2019.
¶ 9 The parties appeared in court on November 18, 2019, and the circuit court began the plenary hearing. The record on appeal does not include a transcript of this hearing, but the circuit court's docket entry from this day indicates that Fricke presented the testimony of three witnesses. At the conclusion of that day's proceeding, the circuit court entered a written order extending the emergency order of protection until the next scheduled hearing on December 2, 2019. The record does not reflect any objection to the circuit court's extension of the emergency order of protection to that date.
¶ 10 The parties appeared in court on December 2, 2019, to continue with the plenary hearing. Again, the record does not include a transcript of this hearing, but the circuit court's docket entry from this date indicates that the parties presented additional testimony from witnesses at this hearing. At the conclusion of that day's proceedings, the circuit court entered a written order extending the emergency order of protection to the next hearing date on December 23, 2019. The record does not reflect any objections to the circuit court's extension of the emergency order of protection to this date.
¶ 11 The parties appeared in court on December 23, 2019, to continue with the plenary hearing, and the circuit court's docket entry indicates that the parties presented additional evidence. Only a very small portion of the transcript of this hearing is part of the record on appeal. The circuit court's docket entry from this hearing indicates that the court recessed at 1:15 p.m. and that Fricke's counsel informed the circuit court of a family emergency. The circuit court, therefore, continued the hearing to February 7, 2020, and extended the emergency order of protection to that date over Jones's objection.
¶ 12 The partial transcript of the December 23, 2019, proceeding establishes that Jones objected to the extension of the order of protection to February 7, 2020, because the new expiration date was "outside of 21 days." The circuit court, however, ruled as follows: "Based on counsel emergency, which is—which extension is granted for good cause shown due to extensive amount of testimony and numerous trial dates and the Court's schedule, the [emergency order of protection] is extended to that date." The court further explained, Over Jones's objection, the circuit entered an interlocutory order (December 23 order) that extended the emergency order of protection to February 7, 2020. This December 23 order was the first of three interlocutory orders from which Jones now appeals.
¶ 13 In a later docket entry also on December 23, 2019, the circuit court "sua sponte " set a new January 15, 2020, hearing date to resume the plenary hearing. The circuit court also noted in the docket entry that the emergency order of protection was extended "as previously ordered" and that if the case concluded on January 15, 2020, "prior orders can be addressed at that time."
¶ 14 Jones filed a motion to vacate the December 23 order that extended the emergency order of protection to February 7, 2020. On January 13, 2020, the circuit court reviewed the case file and entered a written order (January 13 order) stating that it was granting Jones's motion to vacate, in part. Specifically, in its findings, the circuit court agreed with Jones that the Domestic Violence Act "limits the extension of emergency orders of protection to not less than 14 nor more than 21 days." However, the circuit court further found, "But for good cause shown, this extension shall be until hearing date of 1/15/20 at 11 a.m." The circuit court, therefore, amended the December 23 order so that the emergency order of protection would expire on January 15, 2020, which was the next scheduled plenary hearing date. The circuit court's January 13 order is the second of three interlocutory orders from which Jones now appeals.
¶ 15 On January 14, 2020, Fricke filed a motion to continue the January 15, 2020, plenary hearing, requesting that the hearing be continued to its original February 7, 2020, date. The record on appeal does not include any further pleadings, orders, rulings, or transcripts in the proceedings below after the filing of Fricke's motion to continue. Jones filed his notice of appeal on February 7, 2020, purporting to...
To continue reading
Request your trial