It must be determined whether a single lunch date between Pea and Hollow constitutes a "household" relationship under the Domestic Violence Act (the Act). An order of protection will be issued under the Act: If... [the] petitioner has been abused by a family or household member..." 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 60/214 (2002). Household members include, "persons who share or formerly shared a common dwelling" or "who have or have had ... a dating relationship." Alison C. v. Westcott, 798 N.E.2d 813, 815 (Ill, App. Ct. 2003) (quoting 750 Comp Stat. 60/103(6) (2002). The Act seeks to protect people in intimate relationships and specifies that dating does not include "casual acquaintanceship[s]" or "ordinary fraternization between 2 individuals in business or social texts." Id. at 815-16 (quoting 60/1306)).

A dating relationship is interpreted by case law as a "serious courtship" with a "romantic focus." People v. Young, 840 N.E.2d 825, 832 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). In Young, the court focused on the fact that the parties had known each other for less than three months and called their relationship "social". As a result, the court in that ease concluded that the parties were not engaged in a serious courtship. Id. The Young court also found it significant that the two parties, who met in a homeless shelter, had admittedly only been on one date. Id. at 827. Similarly, a non-exclusive relationship comprised of a single lunch date did not constitute a "dating relationship." Alison C., 798 N.E.2d at 816. However, the fact that the relationship was "non-exclusive" did not alter the fact that the parties were in a dating relationship when they dated for 10 months and lived together for four of them. People v. Wilson, 827 N.E.2d 416, 419 (Ill. 2005). Thus, although a single date is generally considered insufficient evidence to establish a dating relationship under the Act, Young, 840 N.E.2d at 827, a long-term relationship, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, past or present, generally constitutes a serious, romantic courtship. Wilson, 827 N.E.2d at 419.

In this case, Pea and Hollow were not involved in a dating relationship, because they were not involved in a serious courtship with a significant romantic focus. Pea and Hollow ate lunch and spent the afternoon together job hunting. The two had only been on a single lunch date. The case at hand is very similar to both Alison C. and Young, in which the courts found that the relationship between the parties did not constitute a dating relationship, because the couples had only been on one date. See Alison C., 798 N.E.2d at 816; Young, 840 N.E.2d at 827. Like the court found in Young, the interactions between Pea and Hollow, although friendly and social, do not carry a significant romantic focus that characterizes intimate relationships. See Young, 840 N.E.2d at 827. The relationship between Pea and Hollow is very different from the long-term relationship involved in the Wilson case, where the parties lived together for four months. See Wilson, 827 N.E.2d at 419. Therefore, Pea and Hollow were not involved in a household relationship under the Domestic Violence Act, because the interact between them were not indicative of an established, romantic dating relationship.

1. Read the paragraphs below.

1) In the margin next to each applicable sentence or paragraph, mark which portion of IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion) is represented. For instance, write "I" next to the sentence(s) representing the issue statement.

2) Next, underline/highlight the topic sentences in the application paragraphs.