Overview

In Illinois, a Civil No Contact Order (CNCO) is a civil court order designed to protect a person who has experienced nonconsensual sexual conduct or nonconsensual sexual penetration. The governing law is the Civil No Contact Order Act, 740 ILCS 22. In plain terms, if the court finds that the petitioner was a victim of qualifying nonconsensual sexual conduct or penetration, it can issue an emergency order (short-term, fast) and/or a plenary order (after notice and hearing). The Act provides the definitions and eligibility standards and does not require that the parties be related in any way. It also makes clear that being a minor does not, by itself, prevent a person from obtaining a CNCO.

CNCOs are different from Orders of Protection (domestic violence) and from Stalking No Contact Orders. The Illinois Attorney General’s site explains that CNCOs are specifically for sexual assault cases when there is no domestic relationship requirement. Illinois courts publish a standardized forms suite so you can use current, statewide-approved petitions, orders, and summonses.

Who Typically Benefits and Who Can Apply

People who benefit include survivors of sexual assault/abuse seeking legally enforceable “no-contact” and “stay-away” boundaries in daily life (home, workplace, school, and online). The Act says a petition may be filed by: (1) any person who is a victim of one or more incidents of nonconsensual sexual conduct or penetration; (2) a person filing on behalf of a minor victim; and (3) other representative filings authorized by statute (for example, when the victim cannot file because of age, disability, health, or inaccessibility). The statute also recognizes that a “petitioner” can include the named victim and other persons to be protected by the order. The petitioner is not disqualified just because the petitioner or the respondent is a minor.

Venue is flexible to aid safety and access: you may file where the petitioner resides, where the respondent resides, or where the nonconsensual conduct occurred. Practically, that lets a survivor file in the county that’s safest and most convenient.

Benefits of a Civil No Contact Order

If the court finds qualifying conduct, it can order remedies under Section 213—commonly: no contact through any channel (in-person; calls; texts; email; social media; third parties) and stay-away provisions tied to specific addresses, buildings, entrances, and workplaces/schools. The law does not require physical injury to issue an order; the purpose is prevention. Illinois authorities also note criminal and civil enforcement mechanisms for violations, which is why precise, readable terms (especially locations and online boundaries) matter.

Detailed 10-Step Process Focused on Eligibility (Who Qualifies)

Step 1: Map Your Facts to the Statutory Definitions of “Nonconsensual” Conduct

Start by confirming that what happened to you fits Illinois’ definitions, because eligibility turns on nonconsensual sexual conduct or nonconsensual sexual penetration under the Civil No Contact Order Act. In Section 103, Illinois defines “non-consensual” as the lack of a freely given agreement. That definition matters: it focuses the court on whether consent was present—not on myths about resistance, relationship status, or whether you reported the incident criminally. Build a neutral timeline covering who, what, when, and where. Keep descriptions observational (e.g., “attempted to follow me into [named entrance] after I said no”) rather than character labels. You are mapping facts to a legal standard.

Eligibility is not limited by domestic relationship; CNCOs exist precisely for sexual assault where no family/household relationship is required. The Attorney General’s overview places CNCOs alongside domestic-violence Orders of Protection and Stalking No Contact Orders, clarifying that CNCOs specifically address sexual assault without the relationship requirement. This is an important threshold distinction: if your primary harm is stalking (without sexual conduct/penetration), a Stalking No Contact Order may fit better; if domestic abuse, an Order of Protection may be right. But if your facts center on sexual assault, the CNCO track is the one the legislature designed for you.

Next, separate facts that show nonconsent from background noise. Direct statements (“I did not agree,” “stop,” “no”), contextual indicators (incapacity, coercion, threat), post-incident communications, and corroborating artifacts (texts, DMs, call logs, videos) help a judge determine whether the statute’s threshold is met. You do not need to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt; you must present enough credible evidence for the court to grant civil relief, and the Act allows issuance of an order upon a finding that the petitioner was a victim of qualifying conduct. The statute also contemplates that either party can be a minor; being a minor does not bar relief.

Document scope and recurrence. The law recognizes that even a single qualifying incident can justify relief. Make that explicit in your record if that fits your situation: “single incident on [date] at [location].” Conversely, if there were multiple incidents, lay them out chronologically so the pattern is clear. Either way, your eligibility analysis should connect each incident to the legal definition and to the remedies you’ll later request (no contact; stay-away from named places; online restrictions). Keep a “coverage map” of exact addresses, building names, entrances, and parking areas so your future order can translate eligibility into practical, enforceable boundaries. Finally, remember: eligibility hinges on the nature of conduct, not whether you know the respondent, share a household, or filed a police report.

Step 2: Confirm You (or a Representative) Have Standing to File—and for Whom

“Standing” answers who can ask the court for a CNCO and on whose behalf. Illinois’ statute makes this generous, to reduce barriers for victims. Under Section 201(b), a petition may be filed by any person who is a victim of nonconsensual sexual conduct or penetration, including where there is just one incident. Additionally, filings may proceed on behalf of a minor victim, and the Act recognizes representative contexts where the victim cannot file due to age, disability, health, or inaccessibility. Read Section 103’s definition of “petitioner”: it can encompass not only the named petitioner and victim, but also “any other person sought to be protected by this Act.” That means your filing can include additional protected persons (for example, a child or roommate whose safety is impacted), when appropriate under the Act.

A common concern: “Does being a minor disqualify me?” No. The law explicitly says a petitioner is not to be denied a CNCO because the petitioner or the respondent is a minor. That language is there to prevent age-based denials when the facts otherwise meet the statutory standard. Pair that with venue flexibility—file where you live, where the respondent lives, or where the conduct occurred—and you can choose the forum that is safest and most logistically feasible for your evidence and witnesses.

Role clarity helps. If you file for yourself, your affidavit (or verified petition) sets out the facts. If you file for a minor, ensure you can document your legal authority (parent/guardian status). If others need protection due to exposure to the respondent’s behavior (for instance, a child who encountered the respondent at the school pickup line), identify them by full name and, if applicable, birth year, and be prepared to explain how their protection relates to the qualifying conduct. The goal is not to expand the order needlessly; it’s to provide specific, necessary safety coverage anchored to the underlying facts.

Finally, align standing with remedies. Who is protected affects how you will draft no-contact and stay-away terms. For example, if an older sibling is the victim but a younger sibling has experienced intimidation during drop-off, your proposed order might include the school address and particular entrances used at those times. If you study or work on a campus, consider buildings by name and the entrances where prior contact occurred. A clear link between “who qualifies” and “what needs protection” makes it easier for the court to grant tailored relief and for law enforcement to enforce it curbside.

Step 3: Distinguish CNCO Eligibility from Other Illinois Protective Orders—and Choose the Right Track

Illinois has three main protective-order tracks. Picking the right one is part of “who qualifies.” A Civil No Contact Order addresses nonconsensual sexual conduct/penetration and does not require any family/household relationship between you and the respondent. An Order of Protection addresses domestic violence and requires a qualifying family/household relationship. A Stalking No Contact Order targets stalking (repeated conduct causing fear or emotional distress), regardless of relationship. The Illinois Attorney General lays out these tracks side-by-side, and the Illinois courts publish standardized form suites for each track. If your facts are primarily sexual assault, the CNCO track is built for you; if they are primarily stalking or domestic abuse, the other tracks may be better fits.

Why this sorting matters: the eligibility threshold and remedies are optimized differently. CNCOs revolve around whether conduct was nonconsensual (as defined in Section 103) and empower no-contact and stay-away remedies under Section 213 without requiring proof of physical injury. In contrast, stalking orders hinge on a pattern that causes reasonable fear or emotional distress; domestic orders hinge on a domestic relationship and acts of abuse. If your facts include sexual assault and stalking, you might still choose CNCO if the sexual-assault facts are central and timely; your lawyer or advocate can help you weigh parallel filings if appropriate. The key for this article is CNCO eligibility: if you can truthfully allege (and later show) nonconsensual sexual conduct or penetration, you’re in scope.

Now, test edge cases you might worry about. Single incident? The statute allows a petition based on a single incident of qualifying conduct. Minor parties? Neither being a minor petitioner nor a minor respondent disqualifies relief. No police report? A CNCO is a civil proceeding; criminal reports are not prerequisites to civil eligibility (though they may exist in parallel). Online-only misconduct? If the misconduct includes nonconsensual sexual conduct/penetration or threats tied to such conduct, you can still seek civil relief, and you should be ready to ask for explicit online no-contact and anti-doxxing terms in the remedies. Your job in this step is to align facts with the correct legal lane and to be able to say, in one sentence, why the CNCO statute is the right basis for relief in your case.

Step 4: Build an Eligibility-Centered Record (What to Document and Why It Matters)

Eligibility for a Civil No Contact Order (CNCO) turns on whether the petitioner was a victim of nonconsensual sexual conduct or nonconsensual sexual penetration. Step 4 is about building a record that cleanly proves that element, without getting lost in irrelevant detail. Start with a neutral, chronological log. For each incident, write: (1) date and time; (2) exact location (address; building; entrance/parking area, if applicable); (3) what happened in plain words (actions and words, not conclusions); (4) whether you said no or were unable to consent; (5) who else was present or aware; and (6) what artifacts exist (texts, DMs, calls, photos, video). Keep your tone observational. Avoid adjectives that the court can’t enforce; verbs and nouns are stronger than character labels.

Next, gather corroboration that tracks the legal definition of nonconsent. Screenshots and device logs are especially helpful: messages before/after the incident, “are you okay?” texts to friends, or DMs where the respondent references what happened. Preserve metadata whenever possible: visible timestamps, sender/recipient handles, and thread order. If there were medical visits, ask how to obtain records; if there was campus reporting (Title IX) or an employer incident report, note the date and who you spoke with. Witnesses don’t have to have seen the act itself to be useful; contemporaneous disclosures (“I called my friend five minutes later”) can help a judge understand timing and credibility.

Create two parallel sets of materials: a working set (with highlights and your notes) and a hearing set (clean copies labeled “Exhibit A,” “Exhibit B,” etc.). In your working set, annotate each exhibit with a one-line “so what” linked to eligibility. Example: “Exhibit A: 03/12 text—shows I told him to stop.” “Exhibit B: 03/14 DM—respondent referencing prior incident.” This discipline keeps your presentation focused on the gateway element: nonconsent. The hearing set should be tidy and legible; judges read dozens of pages quickly, so eliminate clutter (no duplicate screenshots, crop to relevant portions but leave timestamps/handles intact).

Anticipate common disputes and document around them. If you expect the respondent to argue consent, include artifacts that show withdrawal of consent, incapacity, or lack of freely given agreement. If you anticipate claims that the interaction was purely online, demonstrate how it meets the statute nonetheless (e.g., sexual images or threats tied to sexual conduct). If you fear the argument will shift to your later behavior (“you messaged afterward”), be ready to explain normal human reactions—shock, attempts to de-escalate, or logistical follow-up—and point out that none of those retroactively create consent. Your job is not to predict every rebuttal, but to make it easy for the court to find that qualifying conduct occurred.

Finally, make your record enforcement-ready. While eligibility opens the door, clear remedies keep you safe. Map every incident to the places and channels the order should cover: addresses with unit numbers; building names; entrances and parking areas; phone, SMS, email, social media, and any third-party contact paths. Keep a one-page index that pairs each requested remedy with an exhibit showing why it is necessary. This not only proves eligibility; it also sets up a precise, curbside-enforceable order if the court grants relief.

Step 5: Handle Edge Cases: Minors, Third-Party Filers, and Complex Relationships Without Losing Eligibility Focus

The Civil No Contact Order statute anticipates complicated realities. You don’t lose eligibility simply because you are young, the respondent is young, you once knew each other, or a parent/guardian must file. If you are a minor petitioner, make sure your paperwork clearly states your age and the representative capacity of the adult who files (parent or guardian), if one is needed. If you are filing on behalf of a minor, attach or bring proof of authority (birth certificate, guardianship, or other documentation). The key is that the facts still show nonconsensual sexual conduct or penetration; the court’s threshold does not add a “domestic relationship” requirement.

For third-party filers in special circumstances (e.g., a dependent adult or a survivor who is temporarily inaccessible), the same core principle applies: the petition must allege qualifying conduct clearly. Clarify roles in the caption and narrative—who is the victim, who is the petitioner (if different), and who else, if anyone, needs protection based on exposure to the respondent’s behavior. If you include additional protected persons (a sibling present at pick-up, a roommate who faced intimidation), connect them to the underlying conduct and explain why coverage is necessary (e.g., repeated appearances at the shared entrance or messages routed through that person).

Where there is a prior relationship (dating, classmates, coworkers), keep the focus on consent at the moment of the incident(s). Prior acquaintance does not imply consent. If the respondent will point to friendly messages before or after the date, be ready to show how consent was not freely given at the time in question and how later communications do not retroactively grant consent. If you share a campus or workplace, sketch the logistics early. Name the buildings, entrances, and parking areas where contact occurred or could occur, because your eligibility narrative sets up a targeted, tailored remedy.

Another edge case is online-first misconduct. If the facts involve sexual images, threats tied to sexual conduct, or coercive sexualized messaging without an in-person event, eligibility can still be satisfied. Your record should show lack of freely given agreement and the sexual nature of the conduct. In these cases, your remedies should explicitly cover online channels, bans on doxxing or posting images, and creation of new accounts to contact or monitor you. Again, eligibility is about the conduct; enforcement is about drafting the order so officers and platforms understand what is prohibited.

Finally, a note on credible fear vs. eligibility. Fear and safety planning are real and matter for the court’s decision on remedies, but eligibility is a threshold question: did the qualifying conduct occur? Keep your evidence anchored to that question, then layer your safety concerns to justify specific stay-away and no-contact terms. This separation of issues will make your petition more persuasive and easier for a judge to grant.

Step 6: Draft the Petition So Eligibility Is Unmistakable (Language Patterns That Help Judges)

Judges read at speed. Your petition should let them find the eligibility element in seconds. Use short, dated paragraphs with one incident per paragraph. A reliable structure is: date/time → location → conduct → nonconsent → immediate impact. Example: “March 12, 9:18 p.m., Arts Hall south entrance. Respondent followed me from class and attempted to enter with me after I said no. I pulled the door closed; he pushed it and said ‘we’re finishing this.’ I left by the east exit and messaged a friend at 9:21 p.m. (Exhibit A).” That single paragraph communicates place, conduct, lack of consent, and corroboration.

Avoid vague labels (“harassing,” “creepy”) in the eligibility section. Replace them with observable facts. Where capacity is an issue (asleep, intoxicated, ill), state it plainly and, if possible, cite an exhibit (text to a friend, medical note). If threats or coercion occurred, quote exact words if you can, with timestamps. Don’t bury the eligibility punchline—write a sentence that connects the facts to the statute: “I did not freely agree to any sexual contact.” You aren’t arguing the whole case in one paragraph; you are proving the gateway element clearly.

In your relief requested section, maintain the same precision. Eligibility opens the door; relief protects daily life. Tie requested terms directly to incidents: “Stay-away from [address/building/entrances/lot] because of incidents on [dates]. No contact by any means, including indirect/third-party and social media, because respondent used [channels] on [dates].” This mapping helps judges see necessity, and it reduces later disputes with law enforcement about whether a location or channel is covered.

Consistency across documents is part of persuasion. If you say “Apt 4B” in one place and “Apt 4-B” elsewhere, you create avoidable friction. Use the same addresses, building names, and distances in petition, proposed order, and (if applicable) summons. If you are prone to typos or you need to update drafts as new facts arise, keep a single source of truth for names and locations and paste from there. Precision and consistency communicate credibility; they also make it easier for the court to grant everything you truly need.

Finally, practice your petition aloud. Hearing your own words often reveals ambiguities or missing pieces. If you stumble or feel forced into argument, trim adjectives and return to facts. The most effective eligibility narratives are simple: a short series of dated events that make nonconsent unmistakable.

Step 7: Service and Identity—Ensuring the Right Person Is Notified Without Diluting Your Eligibility Case

Your plenary hearing (and sometimes enforcement of an emergency order) depends on valid service. While service is procedural, it intersects with eligibility in two ways: identity clarity and momentum. First, if the respondent uses multiple names or handles, list them consistently across petition and proposed order, and include them in service instructions (“Also known as ___; Instagram: ___”). This prevents the respondent from claiming, “That isn’t me” and reduces misdirection at the hearing. Second, poor service can delay or derail your case, which means your eligibility proof sits unheard. Keep service moving aggressively so the court can actually decide the core issue.

Give the sheriff (or approved process server) the best possible information: home address with unit number; work address with typical hours; any access notes (concierge, rear entrance, gate code); and safe callback details. If photos help, ask whether the office accepts a copy in the packet. Track attempts in a simple log (date, time, result). If you learn a better address, update the server immediately. If attempts fail repeatedly, ask the clerk about a motion for alternative service under local rules (for example, service at work during posted hours). Always confirm with your court how alternative service works before assuming it’s available.

On identity, be ready for a respondent who appears and claims you misidentified them. Your evidence should already include connectors: handles, numbers, email addresses, photos, or witnesses that bridge online and offline identities. Use those connectors sparingly but clearly: “The number texting me ending -1234 is the same number he gave my lab partner (Exhibit D). The Instagram handle @___ contains his name and work uniform photo (Exhibit E).” These small, factual links help a judge reject identity smokescreens quickly and return to the eligibility question.

Finally, separate procedural tension from your eligibility presentation. If service is contested, stay calm; let the court resolve the notice issue. As soon as that gate is cleared, pivot back to your focused, dated facts of nonconsent. Judges notice parties who keep the main thing the main thing; you will be more persuasive if you don’t let procedural disputes swallow your story.

Step 8: Present Eligibility at the Hearing—Burden, Credibility, and Staying on the Statute

At the hearing, your job is to help the court quickly find that the legal threshold is met. Open with a sentence that states what you seek (“a plenary Civil No Contact Order”) and the eligibility basis (“I was subjected to nonconsensual sexual conduct/penetration”). Then walk through two to four dated incidents in short, factual paragraphs. Use your exhibit labels as anchors: “Exhibit A is the 03/12 text where I say ‘stop’ at 9:21 p.m.; Exhibit B is the door camera still of him waiting at the south entrance.” Keep each point connected to nonconsent—lack of freely given agreement, incapacity, coercion, or explicit refusal.

Expect the most common defense—consent—and address it directly with facts. If you were incapacitated, say so and show how the record supports it. If you withdrew consent, point to exact words and times. If the respondent argues that friendliness before or after implies consent, remind the court that consent must be present at the time of the act and cannot be retroactively created by later messages. If online conduct is at issue, explain how the sexual nature and lack of freely given agreement are shown in the messages/images and why online remedies are necessary to prevent future harm.

Credibility is about clarity, not perfection. If you don’t know something, say “I don’t know.” If you made a choice after the incident that the other side portrays as inconsistent with fear (e.g., you returned to class), calmly explain the human reasons (deadlines, safety in crowds, lack of options) and bring the focus back to the conduct itself. Avoid exaggeration and absolutes; the truth persuades without adornment. Judges often signal what they need; listen for those cues and answer precisely.

When you transition to remedies, keep eligibility in view: “Because the qualifying conduct happened at the south entrance and in messages afterward, I ask for no contact by any means, including indirect/third-party and social media, and stay-away from [specific addresses/buildings/entrances/lot].” This demonstrates tailoring—orders that fit the facts are more likely to be granted and easily enforced. If the court trims a clause, offer a one-sentence reason to keep it; if the court remains unconvinced, accept the ruling and secure the rest of your must-haves without argument fatigue.

Step 9: Tie Eligibility to Tailored Remedies—Draft Terms Officers Can Enforce in Seconds

Courts grant CNCOs to prevent future harm. Your eligibility proof should naturally flow into specific, necessary terms. Draft your proposed order so an officer at a curb can tell, in seconds, whether a violation occurred. In the No Contact section, enumerate channels: in-person; phone; SMS; email; social media (name examples); and indirect/third-party. If the facts involve online misconduct, add bans on doxxing, posting/sharing images, or creating new accounts to contact or monitor you. In the Stay-Away section, list full addresses with unit numbers, building names, entrances (north/south/east/west), and any parking areas or bus stops where contact occurred. Link each location to an incident (“included due to 03/12 and 03/14 encounters”).

For shared environments—campus or workplace—include logistical separation: different class sections or lab blocks, no waiting in named lobbies, restricted presence at specific lots during shift changes. Avoid vague zones like “stay away from campus.” Precision helps officers, reduces accidental violations, and limits argument later. Keep distances reasonable (e.g., 500 feet) so they are enforceable without shutting down your own access to spaces you need.

Double-check that names and addresses match your petition. If your eligibility narrative used “Arts Hall south entrance,” your order should use the exact same phrase. Mismatches create friction on the street and give room for excuses. Have two versions of the order: a clean one for signature and a working copy with your checklist. Read the signed order before you leave. If anything is missing or mis-stated, ask for a correction while everyone is present. This is the final mile where eligibility becomes protection; your attention to detail here has outsized impact on daily safety.

Step 10: Extend or Modify Based on Ongoing Eligibility Ground—Document, Refresh, and Stay Precise

Eligibility doesn’t end with the first order. Extensions and modifications still rest on the same core: continued need grounded in facts. Calendar the expiration the day you receive the signed order and set reminders 45, 30, and 14 days out. Begin assembling an extension packet at 45 days: a concise declaration describing ongoing safety concerns; a violation log if any; and a list of new logistics (changed class times, new work site, newly relevant entrances or lots). Your exhibits should again be clean and minimal—dated screenshots, emails, photos, or witness notes that show continued nonconsensual contact attempts or risk. If there were no violations but you still have a credible need (e.g., same campus, continued proximity), say so and tie it to concrete daily realities.

For modifications, be surgical. Add specific places where contact has occurred since the order (e.g., west entrance now used due to schedule change). If the respondent switches channels (new messaging app, indirect contact through acquaintances), update the no-contact section accordingly. Avoid overbroad revisions; judges are more receptive to targeted, evidence-backed changes. Keep formatting identical to the original order’s structure so officers can parse updates quickly.

Maintain your documentation rhythm. Keep the violation log current; store PDFs of the order and exhibits in a folder you can access on your phone. If clerical edits are needed (typo in address, wrong unit number), request an amended order promptly; small errors can become big problems in enforcement. If your life changes substantially (new job, relocation), re-map your daily routes and rebuild the “coverage map” that connects eligibility facts to protective terms. Consistent, precise updates show the court you are focused on safety, not punishment—and that your requests are necessary and workable.

Finally, continue to separate eligibility from everything else in how you present your case. Even months later, lead with facts that show why protection remains necessary, then propose tailored terms that track those facts. That approach earns trust, keeps the order aligned with your real life, and ensures that if enforcement is needed, officers and institutions can act quickly and confidently on your behalf.

Costs

Illinois protection-order proceedings are structured to minimize cost barriers for petitioners. Filing fees are commonly waived in CNCO matters, and sheriff’s civil service is often provided at low or no cost; confirm local practices with your circuit clerk. Always use the current statewide forms from the Illinois Courts site to avoid rejection and re-printing costs.

Time Required

Emergency CNCOs can be issued quickly when immediacy is shown, with a later plenary hearing after notice. Your exact timeline depends on local calendars and how fast service is completed—using the standardized Summons (Protective Orders) and tracking service status helps avoid continuances.

Limitations

A CNCO is a civil, preventive order. Relief must be within the statute and tailored to safety; physical injury is not required for issuance. The order’s effectiveness depends on the precision of requested terms (addresses, entrances, online channels) and on proper service.

Risks and Unexpected Problems

Typical pitfalls include using outdated forms, vague location descriptions that are hard to enforce, and service failures that delay the plenary hearing. Reduce risk by downloading the current statewide CNCO suite from Illinois Courts, mapping exact places and channels into your requests, and monitoring sheriff service until a return of service posts.

Sources

• Illinois General Assembly — Civil No Contact Order Act (740 ILCS 22)
• Illinois Courts — Civil No Contact & Stalking No Contact Order Forms (statewide standardized CNCO suite)
• Illinois Courts — Approved Statewide Standardized Forms (forms hub)
• Illinois Courts — Summons (Protective Orders) — approved statewide form
• Illinois Attorney General — Orders of Protection overview (relationship of OP, CNCO, and SNCO)
• Illinois State Police — LEADS Protection Orders reference (remedies and statutory cross-references)