The Illinois Domestic Violence Act allows victims of domestic violence to obtain plenary orders of protection against their abusers for up to two years in duration. While those protections may certainly provide a victim with peace of mind, questions often arise as to what happens once that two-year period ends.
To discourage abusers from simply picking up where they left off, the IDVA allows for an extension of a plenary order of protection under several circumstances, including extensions for both fixed and indefinite durations. While uncontested requests for extensions can be granted based upon the victim’s affidavit, the law previously provided some confusion as to what a victim seeking a contested extension was required to prove. In Graham, the Second District Appellate Court answered this question and imposed different requirements on victims seeking fixed versus indefinite extensions of orders of protection. Graham v. Van Rengen, 2024 IL App (2d) 230611.
The victims in Graham—a husband and wife—sought and obtained a two-year plenary order of protection against the wife’s mother. They later sought and obtained an extension of that order of protection for a two-year fixed term. The mother appealed. Affirming, the Graham court drew a distinction between requests for definite and indefinite extensions of orders of protection.
For requests for indefinite extensions, the Graham court reasoned that victims must establish “good cause” before a court may enter a temporally unlimited order of protection.
Departing from several prior decisions, the Graham court went on to hold that a showing of “good cause” is not required where an extension is contested and is sought for a fixed period not exceeding two years.
While the Graham court did not define “good cause,” it is apparent from the decision that a victim seeking a fixed-term extension faces a much lower hurdle than one seeking an indefinite extension. It appears that the same conduct which gave rise to the initial order of protection can also form a basis for an extension of that order for up to another two years.
While a victim must ultimately weigh a number of factors when deciding whether to seek an extension of an order of protection—including cost, risk, and, being forced to “dredge up their terror before the court to explain why the order remains necessary”—the law now imposes a much lower burden on victims who wish to extend their orders of protection for two years or less.
Matthew D. Elster, Partner
For more on Mr. Elster, please visit:
