A.A. v. Nita A.

Respondent appealed from the trial court’s issuance of a protective order against her on behalf of her adult child pursuant to the Illinois Domestic Violence Act. Respondent argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition for an order of protection that the statute of limitations barred the petition, that the trial court improperly considered electronic messages between the petitioner and the respondent, and that the trial court’s rulings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. On appeal, petitioner argued that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the order of protection had expired. The appellate court first addressed the question of its jurisdiction and found that while the matter was technically moot it would nevertheless consider it under the public interest exception, reasoning that protecting transgender individuals from abuse by family members is a matter of public interest. The appellate court then affirmed the order entered by the trial court, finding that the trial court’s jurisdiction was not limited to abuse that occurred in the state of Illinois, that respondent had forfeited her argument regarding the statute of limitations, that the trial court properly considered evidence that was relevant and admissible during the hearing on the order of protection, and that the trial court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. (LAMPKIN and D.B. WALKER, concurring)