Background
C.D. and W.F. had known each other for approximately 20 years from prior employment. In December 2024, C.D. contacted W.F. for business advice. They then engaged in sexual encounters over a five-to-six-week period (December 23 through January 30, 2025). According to C.D.’s testimony, during this time W.F. choked or strangled her on multiple occasions, despite her disclosing that she had previously been a victim of domestic violence involving choking until unconsciousness. C.D. also alleged that on January 30, 2025, W.F. sexually assaulted her by having unprotected intercourse without her consent. She reported the assault to police and obtained a rape kit at the hospital. W.F. disputed all allegations, testifying that the encounters were consensual and that he never strangled her, only placing his hands on her neck intimately when requested.
The trial court held a bench trial on June 9, 2025, with both parties providing conflicting testimony. The court found W.F. credible and C.D. largely not credible, characterizing the relationship as “a brief volatile but nonexclusive relationship.” On June 23, the trial court denied C.D.’s petition for a plenary order of protection, finding that C.D. failed to prove abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. C.D. appealed both the denial of her petition and the earlier order vacating a default protective order granted due to W.F.’s missed hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial without reaching the substantive abuse question, instead resolving the case on jurisdictional grounds. The court held that C.D. and W.F. were not in a “dating relationship” as defined by the Illinois Domestic Violence Act (IDVA) and therefore the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under the Act. A “dating relationship” under the IDVA requires a “serious courtship” involving significant romantic focus and commitment—more than casual sexual encounters or a brief physical relationship. The court’s decision relied on prior precedent establishing that numerous sexual encounters alone are insufficient to establish a dating relationship; the relationship must involve an established romantic dimension.
Applying this standard, the court found the evidence showed only a secret, non-exclusive, primarily sexual relationship lasting about five-to-six weeks that lacked romantic development. Although the parties met and engaged in intercourse on three separate occasions, the relationship began with C.D. seeking business advice and consisted of clandestine encounters—C.D. was not even invited into W.F.’s place of business. The court concluded this did not satisfy the statutory definition of a dating relationship, meaning W.F. was not a “family or household member” as required by the IDVA. Because the statutory requirement was not met, the trial court properly lacked jurisdiction to grant a protective order, making the denial proper regardless of whether abuse occurred.
Key Takeaways
- The IDVA’s protections extend only to relationships meeting the statutory definition of “dating relationship”—a serious courtship with romantic focus—not merely to short-term sexual relationships.
- Courts will examine the duration, exclusivity, romantic character, and development of a relationship when determining whether it qualifies as a dating relationship under the IDVA; brief, secret, non-exclusive sexual encounters do not meet the threshold.
- When a petitioner fails to establish that the respondent is a “family or household member,” courts lack jurisdiction to grant protective orders under the IDVA, making the existence or absence of abuse legally irrelevant to the outcome.
- The trial court’s credibility determinations, while important to abuse findings, do not override the jurisdictional requirement that parties be within the class of protected relationships.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the boundary of the IDVA’s reach and reinforces that the Act’s protections, while broad, do not extend to all intimate relationships. The ruling is significant for victims and respondents alike: it establishes that brief sexual relationships, even those involving disputed allegations of serious abuse, may fall outside the IDVA’s jurisdictional scope depending on whether the parties can be characterized as having been in a “dating relationship” in the legal sense. Courts must distinguish between sexual intimacy and romantic commitment when evaluating whether the statutory definition is satisfied, and they cannot circumvent jurisdictional limits by finding abuse if the parties were never family or household members to begin with.
For practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of developing a factual record regarding the romantic and relational dimensions of any disputed connection between parties—not merely the frequency or nature of sexual contact. The court’s adherence to established precedent from Alison C., Howard, and McClellan also signals consistency in how Illinois courts will interpret what constitutes a dating relationship eligible for IDVA protection going forward.