Watkins v. Watkins
| Docket Number | 4-23-0311 |
| Decision Date | 25 August 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 IL App (4th) 230311 U |
| Parties | CHELSEA L. WATKINS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. NICHOLAS R. WATKINS, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Scott County No. 23OP4 Honorable David R. Cherry, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment granting an order of protection and vacated the order because the trial court erred in denying respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.
¶ 2 Petitioner, Chelsea L. Watkins, filed a petition seeking an order of protection for herself and on behalf of the parties' children against respondent, Nicholas R Watkins. The trial court granted the petition and entered the order of protection. Nicholas appeals, arguing, in pertinent part, the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the petition under section 2-619(a)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(3) (West 2022)), because Chelsea's separate petition for an order of protection involving the parties and the same cause was still pending in a neighboring county. We hold the court erred in denying Nicholas's motion to dismiss the petition for an order of protection. Accordingly, we reverse the court's judgment and vacate the order of protection.
¶ 4 The parties are involved in a marriage dissolution proceeding filed in Morgan County, Illinois. The parties have two children together, M.W. (born January 2012) and S.W. (born September 2014). On July 2, 2021, the trial court entered an agreed order in the marriage dissolution case, providing for alternating parenting time between the parties on a weekly basis.
¶ 5 On February 17, 2022, Chelsea filed a petition seeking an emergency order of protection in Morgan County case No. 22-OP-41. In her petition, Chelsea sought an order prohibiting Nicholas from engaging in acts of abuse and from having contact with Chelsea and the children. The petition in case No. 22-OP-41 was still pending during the events at issue in this case.
¶ 6 On January 27, 2023, Chelsea filed another petition for an order of protection against Nicholas, on behalf of herself and the children, in Morgan County case No. 23-OP-25. The trial court dismissed the petition on February 3, 2023, finding the allegations in the petition, even if true, were insufficient to grant relief.
¶ 7 On the same day, February 3, 2023, Chelsea filed the petition for an order of protection at issue in this case in Scott County. Chelsea sought an emergency and plenary order of protection against Nicholas for herself and on behalf of the children. The Scott County circuit court entered an emergency order of protection.
¶ 8 On February 7, 2023, Nicholas filed a motion to dismiss the petition or, alternatively, to vacate the emergency order and transfer the case to the Morgan County circuit court. The trial court denied Nicholas's motion and extended the emergency order. Nicholas filed a motion requesting a conference between the judges in Morgan County and Scott County pursuant to Seventh Judicial Circuit Court Rule 309 (May 1, 2019), given the cases filed in those counties both related to child custody. Nicholas asserted the issues of child custody and parenting time should be decided in the marriage dissolution proceeding filed in Morgan County. The judges assigned to the cases in Morgan County and Scott County conferred, but the record does not reflect any agreement.
¶ 9 Nicholas then filed another motion to dismiss Chelsea's petition filed in Scott County under sections 2-619(a)(3) and (a)(4) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(3), (a)(4) (West 2022)), alleging, in pertinent part, when Chelsea filed her petition in this case, there was already a separate petition for an order of protection filed by her in Morgan County case No. 22-OP-41. Nicholas attached a docket sheet for case No. 22-OP-41 and asserted the Scott County petition should be dismissed because another action was pending between the same parties for the same cause. He also attached the dismissal order for case No. 23-OP-25, showing the Morgan County circuit court dismissed the petition for an order of protection on February 3, 2023, the same day Chelsea filed her petition in this case in Scott County.
¶ 10 The parties appeared for a hearing on the Scott County petition on March 22, 2023. At the outset of the hearing, the trial court indicated the order of protection would remain in place until the parties came to an agreement in the divorce case on how the children "are going to be taken care of." The court stated, "I'm pretty adamant about no visitation or supervised visitation, which should be decided in the divorce case, not by me." The court stated, "I think [the children] need to be protected, and I'm not about to dismiss an Order of Protection until you've figured out something along those lines in the divorce case."
¶ 11 The trial court then addressed Nicholas's motion to dismiss, initially stating, Nicholas informed the court of the separate petition for an order of protection still pending in Morgan County case No. 22-OP-41. Nicholas argued the instant Scott County petition should be dismissed under section 2-619(a)(3) because an action was already pending against Nicholas seeking an order of protection for Chelsea and the children in case No. 22-OP-41. Nicholas submitted a copy of the petition filed in case No. 22-OP-41 to the court. The court denied Nicholas's motion to dismiss, reiterating, "You need to do something in the divorce case to get me to dismiss that." The court stated it believed there were grounds for a plenary order based upon what it heard at the time of the request for an emergency order. The court stated, "I still believe that there are grounds, and if you don't want an emergency order extended, I'll enter a plenary order today if, in fact, the petitioner wants to proceed with a plenary hearing or a plenary order."
¶ 12 The parties then proceeded with the hearing. Chelsea called the parties' daughter, M.W., to testify. She testified she was 11 years old. On one occasion, Nicholas was trying to comb her brother S.W.'s hair and she overheard "[c]uss words" and her brother "holler." Nicholas later told M.W. he did not choke S.W. and asked her not to tell anyone. M.W. also testified on another occasion, she and Nicholas attempted to retrieve kittens from their basement, and he held her by the neck to get her to go to her room because she started crying. She further testified she did not want to go to Nicholas's house because he had been "rude," he would "hurt[ ]" her and S.W., he would cuss and scream loudly, and he would send S.W. to bed for a long time. M.W. admitted "sometimes we don't behave." She also testified Nicholas sometimes put their dog, Max, on the ground and placed his hands by Max's neck.
¶ 13 On cross-examination, M.W. testified Nicholas held Max down by his neck when he started "sniffing a lot" and nipping or biting. When they attempted to retrieve the kittens from the basement, she explained Nicholas "kind of just, like, took my neck and pushed me forward." She acknowledged she did not know what happened when Nicholas was trying to comb S.W.'s hair, but she heard Nicholas yell and S.W. "screech." Nicholas later said he was sorry, he would not do it again, and not to tell anyone.
¶ 14 Chelsea testified the parties exchange the children at the Jacksonville police station. During an exchange in 2021, Nicholas wanted to discuss an education issue and he blocked her from entering her car when she declined to discuss it at the time. He allowed her to get into the car when she mentioned there were surveillance cameras in the parking lot. Chelsea described Nicholas's voice as angry and loud during the incident, and she testified the children looked fearful and upset. Additionally, following the entry of the temporary order in the divorce case, Nicholas "frequently" threatened to not return the children and stated he was going to take them away, causing the children to be upset when it happened in front of them. On one occasion, Nicholas also stopped her phone call with the children when she said something he disagreed with. Chelsea testified Nicholas's behavior had "severely impacted" her mental health, causing her to miss several days of work and seek treatment at a hospital.
¶ 15 On cross-examination, Chelsea admitted the alleged abuse was occurring at the time she agreed to the temporary order in the divorce case, providing for alternating parenting time on a weekly basis. She agreed to the temporary order despite the alleged abuse by Nicholas. Chelsea also admitted she had an "outburst" in court during a hearing on January 26, 2023, on an order of protection sought by Nicholas on behalf of the children against Chelsea's boyfriend. She admitted she was escorted out of the courtroom by a bailiff, and she filed a petition for an order of protection on behalf of herself and the children against Nicholas the next day. Chelsea's petition was dismissed by the Morgan County circuit court in case No. 23-OP-25. Chelsea further acknowledged she offered Nicholas additional time with the children at a time when she also claimed he abused them. On redirect examination, Chelsea asserted she later changed her mind on her offer of additional parenting time due to Nicholas's behavior.
¶ 16...
To continue reading
Request your trial