By Michael Phillips

A recent article by Chicago family law attorney Russell D. Knight, published June 11, 2025, has pulled back the curtain on one of the most controversial tools in Illinois family court: the emergency order of protection. These orders, often filed during allegations of domestic abuse, don’t just offer temporary safety—they can immediately reshape custody arrangements, leaving one parent with full control and the other completely cut off from their child, all before a single hearing takes place.

To those unfamiliar with the family court system, that might sound like justice in action. But to a growing number of fathers, due process advocates, and constitutional conservatives, it’s a familiar—and dangerous—story: guilty until proven innocent.

The Power of an Allegation

In Illinois, emergency orders of protection (EOPs) can be granted ex parte, meaning the accused parent doesn’t even have to be present or informed before the order is issued. As Knight explains in his article, if abuse is alleged and a judge believes there’s immediate danger, the court can strip a parent of their right to see, speak to, or even know the whereabouts of their child—instantly.

While the intent is to protect victims of domestic violence (a critical concern), the system also opens the door to misuse. In custody battles, one parent can gain the upper hand by simply accusing the other of abuse, securing a protective order that grants temporary custody, which too often becomes de facto permanent.

When Temporary Becomes Permanent

Though labeled “temporary,” these orders often influence final custody decisions. Why? Because courts favor “status quo” arrangements when making long-term determinations. If one parent has had sole custody for weeks or months under an EOP, judges often treat that as the new normal—regardless of whether the abuse claim was ever substantiated.

This creates a chilling effect for the accused parent—typically the father—who may lose access to their children, home, and reputation without ever getting a chance to defend themselves.

No Accountability for False Claims

Conservatives have long argued that the system lacks sufficient safeguards against false or exaggerated allegations, and Illinois is no exception. Once a protective order is granted, even if the accusations later fall apart, the damage is done. Jobs are lost. Visitation is suspended. Children are alienated. And the accusing parent faces little to no consequence for making a false claim.

Shouldn’t a legal system built on constitutional principles—like due process, presumption of innocence, and equal protection—be held to a higher standard?

The Need for Balance

Of course, real domestic violence must be taken seriously. But the right-of-center concern is that courts are incentivized to “err on the side of caution” at the expense of parental rights. Instead of carefully evaluating evidence, judges too often rubber-stamp protective orders based on fear of media backlash or political optics.

Attorney Knight’s article spotlights how the line between protection and punishment has blurred in Illinois family law. The result? A court system where one-sided narratives can become legal weapons, and where too many fathers find themselves erased from their children’s lives by a process that prioritizes precaution over fairness.

A Call for Reform

It’s time Illinois—and the nation—revisited how emergency protective orders are handled in custody cases. Here are a few principles worth considering:

• Require prompt evidentiary hearings within days of granting an EOP that affects custody.
• Penalize false or malicious accusations with real legal consequences.
• Mandate judicial training on recognizing coercive litigation tactics, not just abuse dynamics.
• Ensure both parents have access to counsel, especially in cases that alter custody.

Protective orders should be about protection, not power plays. The safety of children and the integrity of families both deserve better.