HB1904 amends two Illinois protective-order statutes: the Stalking No Contact Order Act and the Civil No Contact Order Act. In both laws, it changes the court’s authority to award a successful petitioner costs and attorney’s fees into a mandatory requirement. For stalking no contact orders, the bill replaces “may” with “shall” for fee and cost awards; for civil no contact orders, it adds a new mandatory fee-and-cost award when the order is granted.
The bill does not change the basic standards for obtaining either type of order, nor does it alter the existing remedies available under those acts, such as stay-away provisions, no-contact provisions, firearm restrictions in stalking cases, or school-related relief when the parties attend the same school. Its main effect is financial: it shifts litigation costs toward respondents when petitioners prevail, potentially making these protective-order proceedings less expensive for victims and more costly for respondents found to have engaged in stalking or non-consensual sexual conduct.
Impact
HB1904 would amend 740 ILCS 21/80 and 740 ILCS 22/213 to require courts to award petitioners costs and attorney’s fees when a stalking no contact order or civil no contact order is granted. This would make fee-shifting mandatory rather than discretionary in stalking cases and newly mandatory in civil no contact order cases. The bill would affect petitioners seeking protection, respondents found subject to these orders, and courts applying the statutes, but it would not otherwise revise the substantive grounds for relief or the range of injunctive remedies available under either act.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears straightforward and victim-supportive in purpose. The policy direction is to strengthen access to protective orders by reducing the financial burden on successful petitioners. No recorded opposition, amendments, or roll-call votes are provided in the materials, so there is no documented public debate in the supplied context.
Contention
The primary point of potential contention is the shift from discretionary to mandatory attorney’s fees and costs. Supporters would likely view this as a deterrent to stalking and sexual misconduct and as a way to help victims recover the expense of seeking court protection. Opponents, if any, might argue that mandatory fee awards could increase the financial consequences for respondents, including in cases where the facts are disputed, and could discourage litigation or settlement. No specific stakeholder objections are included in the provided record.
Traffic control: driver license; communication regarding requirements for reinstatement of driver license; require secretary of state to provide after court order. Amends sec. 323 of 1949 PA 300 (MCL 257.323).