Illinois Official Reports

Appellate Court

Dibenedetto v. Dibenedetto, 2019 IL App (3d) 180761

Appellate Court 

Caption

NANCY DIBENEDETTO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ROBERT 

DIBENEDETTO, Respondent-Appellant.

District & No. Third District

No. 3-18-0761

Filed November 12, 2019

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 18-OP-1113; the 

Hon. David Garcia, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.

Counsel on

Appeal

Fred A. Joshua, of Fred A. Joshua P.C., of Hickory Hills, for appellant.

Mona Elgindy and Andrea DeTellis, of Prairie State Legal Services, 

Inc., of Joliet, for appellee.

Panel PRESIDING JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the 

court, with opinion.

Justices Lytton and O’Brien concurred with the judgment and opinion.
- 2 -

OPINION

¶ 1 Petitioner, Nancy Dibenedetto, filed a verified petition for a plenary order of protection 

against respondent, Robert Dibenedetto, her husband. In the petition, Nancy alleged a history 

of verbal, emotional, and physical abuse that spanned decades but recently increased in 

frequency and severity. Following a hearing on the petition, the court granted Nancy’s petition. 

It made several findings as to the credibility of witnesses. The court, in its written order, 

indicated the abuse was likely to continue in the absence of an order of protection. Robert 

appeals, arguing the court did not conform its written or oral decision to the statutory 

requirements necessary to issue an order of protection. Further, Robert asserts the court’s 

findings concerning the alleged abuse were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We 

affirm.

¶ 2 I. FACTS

¶ 3 The parties have been married for over 45 years. On May 24, 2018, Nancy filed a verified 

petition for an order of protection against Robert. The petition also requested that the court 

issue an emergency order of protection. Nancy alleged that Robert verbally abused her, insulted 

her daily, routinely humiliated her in public, tracked her movements, threatened to kill her, 

frequented her place of work to cause problems, and physically abused her in the past. The 

circuit court denied Nancy’s motion for an emergency order of protection. 

¶ 4 On May 30, 2018, Nancy filed an emergency motion to rehear her order of protection. In 

her emergency motion, Nancy alleged Robert placed a global positioning system (GPS) device 

in her vehicle, sent text messages indicating his knowledge of her location, visited her place of 

work despite the fact that her employer banned him from entering her workplace, persistently 

called her, and went to all of their children’s houses looking for her. Nancy was in fear for her 

life due to Robert’s past threats to kill her should she ever leave him. Nancy knew Robert had 

access to firearms. She believed her safety was threatened, particularly at work. On June 6, 

2018, the circuit court entered an emergency order of protection that ordered Robert to stay 

away from Nancy and cease further acts or threats of abuse. 

¶ 5 The court heard arguments on Nancy’s petition for a plenary order of protection in 

November 2018. Nancy testified that she suffered emotional, physical, and verbal abuse from 

Robert for the duration of their marriage; Robert’s abuse recently increased. In May 2018, the 

parties’ youngest child told Nancy she would be moving out to go to college. Nancy decided 

she was finally going to leave Robert because she felt her obligations to her children lessened. 

Robert would check her calendar to determine her work hours and ensure Nancy was home 

when she was not working. Due to his heightened awareness of her location, Nancy entered a 

women’s shelter in May 2018. 

¶ 6 Nancy detailed Robert’s history of abuse back to 1979, when he sent her to the emergency 

room after breaking her eye socket for coming home late. Robert repeatedly removed the 

engine coil wire from Nancy’s vehicle to prevent her from going anywhere. Nancy filed for 

divorce and an order of protection in 1999. The court granted Nancy’s petition for an order of 

protection. Robert told Nancy he would attend marriage counseling. Nancy withdrew her 

petitions. After Robert and Nancy reconciled, Robert told Nancy she was lucky she decided to 

take him back because he was ready to “blow ’em away.” Robert followed Nancy to monitor 

where she went and with whom. Nancy described Robert’s practice of going to the grocery 
- 3 -

store with her, verbally insulting her in front of the other customers, and refusing to pay for 

the groceries unless she complied. 

¶ 7 In February 2018, Robert’s alleged abuse escalated. Nancy attended college classes; she 

began separating herself from Robert as a result. Robert threatened her, saying, “[i]f you think 

you’re leaving, I’ll kill ya.” Robert made these types of threats three to four times a month. In 

April 2018, Robert came to Nancy’s workplace. He brought the spare set of keys to Nancy’s 

vehicle and dangled them in front of her. He told her he was going to take the car to have work 

done. Nancy believed Robert was threatening her, taking her car away as punishment. Robert 

never fixed the vehicle. Regarding the GPS device Nancy found in her car in May 2018, Robert 

sent her a text message that read, “GPS is real nice. Why are you doing this? When are you 

coming home? Where the heck are you?” After Nancy filed her petition for an order of 

protection, Robert persistently called and messaged Nancy. He continued to show up at her 

workplace looking for her. Nancy believed her safety was at risk without the order of 

protection. 

¶ 8 Tina Ogrondik, the parties’ child, also testified. She witnessed Robert physically abuse 

Nancy at least five times that she could recall. Tina supported Nancy’s testimony that Robert 

used Nancy’s vehicle to exert power over her. If Nancy did not act to Robert’s liking, he would 

take away her vehicle. Tina believed Robert wanted to discover Nancy’s location after the 

court granted her an emergency order of protection in June 2018. Robert came over three to 

four times a day looking for Nancy. He did the same with his other children. Days before the 

hearing, Robert told Tina that there was still hope for his relationship with Nancy; he would 

not give up. 

¶ 9 Finally, Robert took the stand. Since Nancy initiated these proceedings, he filed for 

divorce. Robert either outright denied all of Nancy’s allegations or claims that she 

mischaracterized them to the court. 

¶ 10 The circuit court granted Nancy’s petition for a plenary order of protection. In the oral 

ruling, the court stated:

“Well, I think that one of the things I have to look at is credibility. And I found that, 

you know, that the daughter especially was very credible. She testified to the fact that 

there had been constant abuse. And it doesn’t mean physical. You can be with 

somebody a hundred years and not ever touch them but mentally abuse them. 

And I can’t begin to explain why women or men stay in abusive relationships. *** 

I believe that there was abuse here. And it is not because of an incident that happened 

40 years ago or 35 years ago. It is the fact that there was testimony *** that it began 

then but it just escalated or began to escalate this year. I mean, he continued to do those 

kind of things. 

I do believe that he used the car to take control. And after she moved out—and I 

can understand a husband wanting to search for his wife when she hasn’t appeared. But 

once he was told to leave her alone, he continued, which to me just was an extension 

of that abuse. He just doesn’t accept. 

And he comes here and he testifies to I didn’t do this, everybody else are liars. Only 

he’s telling the truth. I found the wife very credible and I found the daughter very—

more than credible. 

So I am going to extend the order of protection for two years. 
- 4 -

Sir, your marriage is over. Stay away from her or I will put you in jail. Do you 

understand me?”

The court also issued a written order of protection. In the findings section, the court indicated 

it found Robert abused Nancy, the abuse was likely to continue in the absence of the order of 

protection, and the order of protection was necessary to protect Nancy. These findings were 

part of a 14-page order of protection form approved by the Conference of Circuit Court Judges.

¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 12 Robert appeals the court’s order, arguing the court failed to satisfy the statutory 

requirements and made findings against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 13 A. Statutory Requirements

¶ 14 Robert contends that the court failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of the Illinois 

Domestic Violence Act of 1986 (Act) by failing to find that (1) Robert’s conduct, unless 

prohibited, is likely to cause irreparable harm or continued abuse and (2) the order of protection 

is necessary to protect Nancy. 750 ILCS 60/214(c)(3)(ii), (iii) (West 2016).

¶ 15 The Act aims to protect victims of domestic violence from further acts of physical, 

emotional, and verbal abuse. Id. To issue an order of protection, the court must find that the 

respondent abused the petitioner. Best v. Best, 223 Ill. 2d 342, 348 (2006). If the court makes 

a finding of abuse, the court is required to make certain findings in “an official record or in 

writing” prior to issuing an order of protection. 750 ILCS 60/214(c)(3) (West 2016). The 

official record or written order must show that the court considered the “relevant factors” that 

the Act defines as:

“the nature, frequency, severity, pattern and consequences of the respondent’s past 

abuse, neglect or exploitation of the petitioner or any family or household member, 

including the concealment of his or her location in order to evade service of process or

notice, and the likelihood of danger of future abuse, neglect, or exploitation to 

petitioner or any member of petitioner’s or respondent’s family or household[.]” Id.

§ 214(c)(1)(i).

¶ 16 After the court considers the relevant factors, section 214(c)(3)(ii) requires an oral or 

written finding that “the conduct or actions of respondent, unless prohibited, will likely cause 

irreparable harm or continued abuse.” Id. § 214(c)(3)(ii). Section 214(c)(3)(iii) requires an oral 

or written finding that it is “necessary to grant the requested relief in order to protect 

petitioner.” Id. § 214(c)(3)(iii). We will reverse the trial court’s entry of an order of protection 

if it fails to make the required findings. People ex rel. Minteer v. Kozin, 297 Ill. App. 3d 1038, 

1043 (1998).

¶ 17 A similar issue recently came up in Landmann v. Landmann, 2019 IL App (5th) 180137. 

After a hearing for a plenary order of protection, the court, in its oral ruling, stated that it 

“ ‘heard the evidence [and] considered the credibility of the witnesses.’ ” Id. ¶ 7. The court 

also issued a written ruling using a preprinted form to indicate that irreparable harm was likely 

to continue in the absence of the order of protection and that the order was necessary. Id. ¶ 17. 

The reviewing court stated this action “satisf[ied] sections 214(c)(3)(ii) and (iii).” Id.

¶ 18 Here, the court complied with sections 214(c)(3)(ii) and (iii) in its written order. Although 

Robert characterizes his issue on appeal as compliance with section 214(c)(3), the substance 
- 5 -

of his argument challenges section 214(c)(1). He contends that the circuit court failed to 

consider the relevant factors in its oral and written judgment. The record belies this contention. 

In issuing its oral ruling, the court stated it found Nancy’s and Tina’s testimony to be credible. 

Nancy and Tina described a history of abuse that spanned decades. Robert first became 

physical with Nancy when he broke her eye socket in 1979. Tina testified that she remembered 

another five instances of Robert physically abusing Nancy. Nancy and Tina told the court how 

Robert would use Nancy’s vehicle to exert power over her, whether that be through disabling 

the vehicle or taking her keys. Nancy described Robert’s practice of publicly humiliating her 

and privately threatening to harm or kill her. Nancy genuinely feared for her life. Robert 

tracked her movements through GPS devices and monitoring her schedule. Nancy could not 

escape, even at work, as Robert would show up and harass her. Even after the court issued an 

emergency order of protection, Robert continued to try to track Nancy down. The court did not 

find Robert credible, meaning the court found his denials and explanations to be an attempt to 

obfuscate the issue. The court noted the persistent nature of the abuse that had recently 

escalated. Robert’s argument is unavailing. The circuit court complied with the statutory 

requirements by noting the nature, frequency, severity, and pattern of Robert’s abuse. 

¶ 19 B. Finding of Abuse

¶ 20 Lastly, Robert contends that the circuit court erred in issuing a plenary order of protection 

because its finding of abuse was against the manifest weight of the evidence. He claims Nancy 

failed to establish that he abused her or is likely to abuse her by a preponderance of the 

evidence. His argument is undeveloped and lacks citations to the record or relevant authority 

in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. May 25, 2018). This court is 

“entitled to have issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and cohesive arguments 

presented [citation], and it is not a repository into which an appellant may foist the burden of 

argument and research.” Obert v. Saville, 253 Ill. App. 3d 677, 682 (1993). Accordingly, we 

have the authority to hold that defendant has forfeited his argument by failing to develop it or 

cite any authority to support it.

¶ 21 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 22 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Will County.

¶ 23 Affirmed.