case whether abuse or harassment occurred in fact the trial court the trial judge found they had abuse had occurred stating and i've got this is his oral ruling and looking at  eighty four in the appendix if this petition had been brought at about that time referring to february or so of of two thousand and fourteen rather than summer of two thousand and fifteen i think that would have constituted views that would have allowed new york caused me to grant the petition so the court the judge finds that there was abuse later on talks about the also that there was harassment by deanna i  there at deanna make donald went through these cycles of abuse he had lived with her i think it was a seventeen or twenty year marriage and had been the subject of repeated and almost daily physical emotional and psychological abuse by her he stayed in that marriage with the children until he couldn't bear it any longer and despite leaving that marriage and asking for and receiving a divorce she continued to torment him and not just with emotional abuse but is the court noted and as the testimony showed that it was abuse that included multiple threats to kill him that she did not denying and that other people heard as well a voicemail left on her on his father's answering machine around this time also saying if you don't shut matt up i'm going to shut him up for you which mr it was which matt macdonald's father understood to mean that she would kill him as she had already multiple times two to two separate times threaten to kill him she had thrown one of those license plates metal license plate overhead or overhanded from one and a half feet away luckily she missed a but then he is among the physical abuse and then the court found also that there had been harassment looking at  eighty five in the appendix the trial court notes there's also harassment and the court has to determine whether or not it constitutes an harassment he calls it a close call but notes that harassment being conduct which is not necessarily necessary to accomplish reasonable purpose and then says i don't think any of the conduct was necessary to content to accomplish a reasonable purpose he acknowledges that but somehow then goes through his mind part of it of course knowing that here's a fire fighter so i don't understand really why a great fire fighter would be would be fearful of his ex wife and certainly the issue of gender and and sex are in there despite the illinois domestic violence act clearly noting that domestic violence happens every day in every community in our state the victims are individuals from all backgrounds ages and cultures irrespective of marital status religion race ethnicity education gender or sexual identity and recognizes that but the trial court clearly had the rubble trying to get its head around the fact that a man especially a firefighter who sees people's lives on a daily basis would have fear  but he clearly doesn't recognizes that matt has emotional his that what deanna has done has caused emotional distress to him he takes medications to try and alleviate that but those are there's clearly the harassment has occurred against him the abuse has occurred and what the trial court seems to have missed when it granted or when it denied the order of protection was that this the d n i mcdonald's actions go in cycles as you probably hear it know what would note in other domestic violence cases as well we have the spring of two thousand and fourteen events where she where m on multiple times threatens to kill a man throws a license plate out and lunges at him makes these these statements then we have there's there's continued actions that that lunging at all three of them so we have been summer two thousand and fifteen so this stuff isn't going away matt is now engaged to alyssa going to get married in august and he recognizes that she is on this upward swing and upwards s o he asks for it the next month july files a verified petition for order of protection the court denies that emergency order of protection request but it's clear that this is part of again part of the cycle and the court says again this if he had done it back in february or march of two thousand and fourteen i would have granted it and that's what he says but since it's been a little bit more and these other things have been his fan crew she  hasn't threatened to kill him she hasn't thrown large metal objects at him in the last several months but she continues to lunge at him her behavior continues to be abusive continues to be harassment but the courts despite having found that abuse had occurred and despite noting this harassment says they had that he it's a close call but he's going to deny it that denial was unreasonable arbitrary and not based on the evidence not even based on his own finding somehow he just can't get around around that issue again that there's a firefighter who's asking for this and then he goes on to say that this is the issue is he's not persuaded this is it is seven there that it caused this these actions by the end caused a reasonable person under normal circumstances emotional distress of course that's not the language of the illinois domestic violence act and has not been it is not a reasonable person under normal circumstances emotional distress it is whether it caused the reasonable person emotional distress now the court already found and noted in its ruling that it did cause ma reasonable did cause him emotional distress severe emotional distress and there was testimony about all of the things that had occurred to him when he has contact and has not when deanna contacts him but this the court in making this ruling and finding that it has to be under normal circumstances is outside of the court's statutory authority as well what we have is findings and clear of escalate of continued and escalating acts of domestic violence against matt and while someone might say well you know if you just stop going around again or stop doing this but she follows him and they have children in common and so sometimes there are contacts that she creates in an effort to continue to talk her way asked him and to continue to keep him she to be able to continue in her abuse of him and her threats and intimidation of him which is now the court also denying it is and here where that alyssa would be eligible for a an order member she has now children stepchildren in common with tina and her family member her husband is a former spouse of deanna mcdonald and should also be eligible for an order of protection based on again  the various acts the harassment repeated harassment not only do we have to end up following alyssa into a bathroom not to use a restroom in one of the children's basketball games but simply to intimidate her to make physical contact protection d n a coming onto the property and lunging straight away at max alyssa and alyssa's mother all of whom were at their house for i think a wedding a wedding shower mat melissa's house and calling in screaming at evidence in the trial court's ruling denying the petition for an order of protection was against the manifest weight of the evidence yet and the court in a as i noted the court found that there was abuse found act has taught us and recognizes is that this is a problem and is not something to be swept away and is not something that just happens to women and is not something that that just happens i mean in certain areas it happens throughout the state and it needs to be stopped and the trial court in denying that petition for protection despite the more than preponderance of the evidence showing abuse and harassment his ruling relationships in which people have standing under the other night a mystic violence act to position the court for an order of protection those relationships include family and household members including those individuals related by present or prior marriage this court tested in benjamin versus mackinnon just how far family relationships go to qualifier that individual for standing under the island mystic violence act and this court found that relationships through affinity remained the individuals related through finity were still eligible under the domestic violence act or a former mother in law which just had just as much standing as a current mother in law under the illinois domestic violence there to petition the court for the relationship between current and former spouses of an individual is very contentious currently are used to have this connection are limited to petitioning the court for a stocking no contact order which has requires two or more active petition and position the court for an order of protection this would increase if this would increase the litigation in the trial courts because these individuals would now have another avenue to apply for protection  harassment harassment as was stated by mr clement is knowing conduct not necessary to accomplish a reasonable purpose and this conduct must be such that would cause a reasonable person emotional distress and did in fact cause deficiency or emotional distress the court considered events that occurred in two thousand and fourteen and two thousand and fifteen as to the events that occurred in two thousand and fourteen the court found that these events did not cause the titian or apollon emotional distress because he could not find at that time and he also did not list the events of two thousand and fourteen specifically in his petition for order of protection find it to be very important to mr macdonald otherwise he would have mentioned it in his petition for order of protection as amended titian for order to action and in two thousand and fourteen the parties were undergoing a contentious divorce there were additional events that occurred in two thousand and fifteen about the time that the parties were really entering into litigation to modify a parenting plan that it didn't or the trial court considered these events which were the ones that were listed in addition for order or protection and verify petition for order of protection and found that while they might cause the petitioner emotional distress they wouldn't have cost the that reasonable person emotional distress one of the events complained of by the petitioner was that the respondent took a photograph of the children at a basketball game that all the parties attended the court found that that would not cause a reason an individual taking a picture of their own children should not cause a reasonable person emotional distress in the trial this was as was stated a case that lasted for three days and continued over three months from december twenty second to march twenty second was three days kirt over a three month time period the court issued its opinion in this matter from the bench and it was a rather lengthy opinion because there were other at issues that were before the court and four times in the court's opinion it stated the elements of harassment the first three times they were verbatim from the statute and the fourth time that the court stated the elements of harassment it added three words under normal circumstances again this was after a three day trial the court said that it was not convinced that of reasonable person under normal circumstances would have been caused emotional distress after stating the element without those three words three separate times the standard in this case is the court well knows is the manifest weight of the evidence the trial court listened over three days of trial over a dozen witnesses from hundreds of pages of trial testimony were were generated and they listen to various accounts of the events complained of by the petitioner he petitioner and his parents his alyssa deanna all testified to different events and their accounts as they will often with eyewitness accounts differ so that the court in who is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses granted be assigned weight to the events that occurred and found that the she denied they advance your honor and then she also had a different testimony relating to the events that occurred in some of the events one party would testify that certain people were present another party would testify that other people were present details as far as how far away people were but there was no denial of the abuse no contrary evidence that d n a had not abused matt repeatedly throughout the marriage that she had not threatened to kill him that she had not left a voicemail on manse father's answering machine telling him she would shut matt up there wasn't any denial that she had thrown the license plate that she had lunged at matt and alyssa and his mother on their property on madden alyssa's property on their porch at all there wasn't any of that denial that abuse that evidence was on contradicted the  suggestion that there was let's see oh that there were photographs that may act didn't like that there were photographs that deanna took of the children it wasn't the piano was taking photographs of the children at the basketball game is that madden melissa work on one side of the stadium and vienna turned around and took those pictures there in itself is not a huge deal if that were the only issue there would be no question there shouldn't be an order  protection but there were multiple events escalating of vents from following alyssa into the bathroom not to use it but to make physical contact and verbal contact with her and intimidate her there was the repeated acts of contact and harassment that d'anna made of matt and as a reasonable person no reasonable person you reasonable person me reasonable person someone who has been subject to abuse from his spouse for years and years  and now she he's seeing this escalation again this was clearly abuse and under the liberal constructions of the domestic violence act which the statute says should be liberally construed alyssa was a family or household member who is eligible for and should have been granted the order of protection or long with matt who was also abused not only in the more recent time that alyssa all was subject to specific and joint abuse by manifest weight of the evidence it somehow seemed to understand there was abuse there was harassment but still couldn't get over this hump of this firefighter needing protection from his wife we would ask that the court to overturn and reverse