HB3002 would amend the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act to create a new section allowing a court, on motion, to seal a divorce, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity court file, including pleadings or portions of the file, when the court finds the action is sufficiently without a basis in fact or law. The bill specifically contemplates situations such as lack of jurisdiction and allows sealing when it is in the interests of justice and those interests outweigh the public’s interest in access to the file.
The bill also creates important limits on sealing. It would not allow sealing of any part of the record concerning whether an order of protection has previously been entered in the proceeding or in another proceeding involving a party or child, when relevant. It also states that sealing under this section cannot interfere with child support payments, income withholding for support, or the reporting of support orders.
Impact
If enacted, HB3002 would add a new court-sealing provision to the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, giving judges express authority to seal certain family-law filings in cases lacking a factual or legal basis. The measure would affect court records in dissolution, legal separation, and invalidity proceedings, while preserving public access to domestic-violence-related information and protecting the administration of child support and support-order reporting.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is available with the bill materials, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the text alone, the bill appears aimed at privacy and misuse prevention in family-law litigation, with a balanced approach that preserves access to protection-order and support-related information.
Contention
The main policy tension in HB3002 is between privacy for family-law litigants and the public’s interest in open court records. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s ability to seal baseless or jurisdictionally defective filings to reduce unnecessary exposure, while opponents or skeptics may be concerned that sealing authority could limit transparency in domestic-relations cases. The bill addresses some likely objections by expressly excluding protection-order history from sealing and by preserving child support enforcement and reporting.