My question involves restraining orders in the State of: Illinois
I was served with an Emergency Order of Protection with a hearing scheduled 21 days from that date. I was planning on leaving the state prior to the date of the hearing, so I petitioned to have it heard at an earlier date. However, through the course of consulting with as many people as possible (although an attorney would have been the best choice, I could not afford one) and researching many of the questions on this site as well, I decided to simply not show up at the hearing and accept a Plenary Order, assuming that that was what was ordered.
There was some personal property requested by the Petitioner and I have already complied with that request by giving those things on my own accord to the Sheriff's Office before the hearing date. Since I didn't show at the re-scheduled hearing, the Judge decided to reset the hearing date to the original date (the one 21 days from the day of the Emergency Order).
This is a civil hearing, not criminal, and all requested properties by the Petitioner have been returned and there hasn't been any violation(s) of contact since the day the Emergency Order was served. I'm still leaving the state, but probably not until weeks after the now-scheduled hearing. Much of what the Petitioner has claimed on the Emergency Order can be refuted through phone messages left by the Petitioner, but not all. Since I understand, mostly from research on the internet and legal forums such as this one, that the burden of proof on a Civil Order of Protection is rather low, I decided to simply not show up and let them grant a Plenary Order. Primarily, the reason for not showing up though is that most of the proof I have to refute her claims, might possibly incriminate me for a future lawsuit of other matters with this woman. Even though I'm pretty confident that a future claim could easily be refuted by any decent lawyer, I'd rather not have to bear the cost of hiring one to be exonerated.
So, I'm wondering if there could be any possible ramifications, other than just a Plenary Order of Protection, by not showing up to this second hearing (although technically, it's still the first). Also, if anyone has any insight as to why the Judge didn't simply just rule on the first hearing or why the original hearing date was reinstated.