Representing himself Pro Se, Michaelea K. Stapp's petition to extend a July 15, 2009, plenary order of protection against respondent, Jeffrey W. Jansen, her ex-boyfriend and the father of their child, the Court found respondent had made multiple attempts to contact petitioner in violation of the original order of protection.
Respondent appealed, arguing the trial court erred in granting the extension of the plenary order of protection where petitioner presented insufficient evidence to justify the extension. The Court affirmed.
On July 15, 2009, the trial court issued a plenary order of protection against respondent relating to allegations respondent was harassing and stalking petitioner. On May 11, 2011, petitioner filed a motion to extend the plenary order of protection, alleging there had been no material change in circumstances since the original order issued.
During the March 21, 2012, hearing on the petition to extend, Quincy police officer David Distin testified he was assigned to investigate a complaint by petitioner regarding respondent's violation of an order of protection. According to Distin, petitioner informed him she had received a message from respondent on an Internet dating website called "plentyoffish.com" (Plentyoffish). Petitioner reported she checked her account just after midnight on November 17, 2009, and found she had received a message bearing respondent's picture with the username, "Sotoris."
Petitioner testified respondent had contacted her numerous times on the Internet. In addition to sending her the picture of the dog, petitioner testified respondent also sent her a message through the Plentyoffish website, which read "hi." Petitioner testified a Plentyoffish user could delete messages sent from his or her account. According to petitioner, she never invited respondent to contact her through the dating website. Petitioner testified respondent also made contact with her through MySpace and Facebook.
Petitioner was called in rebuttal and testified she had no formal computer training and did not "doctor" any Facebook, MySpace, or any other social media accounts to assume a false identity. Petitioner testified, in preparing the documents, all she did was press the print button on the computer. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated it would take the matter under advisement.
In its detailed May 4, 2012, order, the trial court found the following:
"1. The court has had the opportunity to observe all the witnesses who testified, and to determine the weight and credibility to be assigned to each of them.
2. The court has examined all of the exhibits which were admitted herein.
3. The court has reviewed the Plenary Order of Protection ordered herein on July 15, 2009.
4. Pursuant to 750 ILCS 60/220(e), the court finds that the petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent has made multiple attempts to contact her while the Plenary Order of Protection has been in effect; that said attempt[s] at contacts have been in violation of the restrictions in said order of protection; and that the petitioner has shown good cause for an extension of said order of protection.A Lengthy Analysis section follows, which discusses the Illinois Domestic Violence Act, (750 ILCS 60/220(e) (West 2010).
In sum, both petitioner and respondent testified in this case. Petitioner maintained respondent had made multiple attempts to contact her. Respondent denied petitioner's allegations. While the parties presented conflicting testimony, the trial court resolved the issues in petitioner's favor. The evidence presented was sufficient to support the court's finding. Thus, the court did not err in granting an extension of the plenary order of protection
For the reason's stated, the Court affirmed the trial court's extension of the plenary order of protection.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15062077396461742702&q=facebook&hl=en&as_sdt=4,14&as_ylo=2013
