LAKE COUNTY, Ill. — A Florida mother is challenging a series of Illinois court actions she says violated her constitutional rights, state law, and federal disability protections, culminating in what she describes as a void ab initio child‑custody order that has kept her from her children for nearly four years.
The appeal, filed under Appellate Court Case No. 2‑25‑0481, centers on the circuit court’s October 8, 2025 dismissal of Heather Bendl’s petition to vacate an April 27, 2022 custody order. Bendl argues the order was entered without subject‑matter jurisdiction and in violation of the Uniform Child‑Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, or UCCJEA — the statute governing interstate custody authority.
But the controversy extends beyond jurisdiction. According to the record, the court proceeded with the October 2025 hearing while Bendl — a documented disabled litigant — was placed in a Zoom waiting room and denied entry, despite appearing on time through the court‑authorized link. The judge dismissed her petition with prejudice while she was unable to participate.
Bendl later submitted a proposed Bystander’s Report to document what occurred at the hearing, but the court refused to certify it, citing her physical absence — an absence she says the court itself caused.
The appeal now raises constitutional, statutory, and procedural questions that could have implications for remote‑appearance rights, disability accommodations, and the limits of judicial authority in interstate custody disputes.
A Custody Order Entered After Illinois Lost All Ties to the Family
At the heart of the appeal is the April 27, 2022 order that reversed custody, modified child support, and “reserved” parental rights — all entered at a hearing Bendl did not attend because she was hospitalized for a medical emergency.
By that date, the record shows:
- All three younger children had been living in Florida since August 13, 2021.
- Their father, Justin Serlick, had moved to Florida in July 2020.
- Bendl herself became a Florida resident in December 2021 and obtained a Florida driver’s license on February 8, 2022.
- On February 28, 2022, the Illinois court issued an order directing the case to be transferred to Florida, acknowledging that all parties resided there.
Under the UCCJEA, Illinois loses exclusive, continuing jurisdiction when neither the children nor the parents reside in the state. Bendl argues this condition was met months before the April 2022 order was entered.
Her appeal asserts that the April order is void because Illinois no longer had authority to modify custody or child support — a position reinforced by the court’s own February 28 transfer order, which she characterizes as a judicial admission.
A Troubled History: Juvenile Court, DCFS, and the 2020–2021 Removal of the Children
The case’s origins trace back to October 2020, when the four children were removed from daycare by DCFS caseworker Jessica Lyman after allegations made by Serlick. The children were made wards of the State of Illinois, and Bendl was placed under a gag order prohibiting her from discussing the case with anyone — including her own family — under threat of jail.
During the juvenile proceedings, the children were placed under the supervision of Camelot Care, a private agency that continued to restrict all contact between Bendl and her children. The appeal alleges that the agency, along with attorneys, guardians ad litem, and foster parents, financially benefited from federal Title IV funding tied to foster placements — a claim that raises broader questions about systemic incentives in child‑welfare cases.
In August 2021, three of the children were transported to Florida under a temporary guardianship order, despite Bendl still being their sole custodial parent under the 2013 divorce judgment. The juvenile cases for those three children were closed in December 2021 because all parties were living in Florida.
The oldest child, A.S., remained in Illinois foster care until June 2023, when she, too, was transported to Florida against her wishes.
The Disputed 2022 Order and the Fight for Jurisdiction
The April 27, 2022 order was entered during a hearing that Bendl missed due to a documented medical emergency. No termination‑of‑parental‑rights hearing has ever been held in Illinois or Florida, yet the order has been used to block all contact between Bendl and her children.
Her appeal argues that:
- No valid custody or support petition was pending in April 2022.
- Respondent’s 2021 petitions were never properly served and were filed while the children were still wards of the State — rendering them legal nullities.
- The court lacked jurisdiction under both the UCCJEA and UIFSA.
- The order was entered without notice, without a pending motion, and without authority — making it void.
Bendl’s Florida attorney later reported that Serlick told her Bendl could see the children “once she pays child support” under the disputed order — a statement the appeal characterizes as evidence that the children are being held “hostage” through an unlawful judgment.
Due Process, Disability Rights, and Remote Appearance
The October 8, 2025 dismissal hearing has become a flashpoint in the appeal.
Bendl, who has documented hearing impairment and complex PTSD, requested ADA accommodations including remote appearance and CART captioning. The court had previously allowed her to appear remotely. But on the day of the hearing, she was placed in a Zoom waiting room and never admitted.
The judge proceeded without her and dismissed her petition with prejudice.
Her appeal argues that this violated:
- The Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process.
- Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
- Illinois Supreme Court Rule 45, which states that remote appearances are equivalent to in‑person appearances “for all purposes.”
- The Equal Protection Clause, because the opposing party — also out of state — was permitted to appear remotely while she was not.
When Bendl later submitted a Bystander’s Report to document what occurred, the court refused to certify it because she was not physically present — a rationale she argues is circular and unlawful.
What Comes Next
The appellate court will now determine whether the April 27, 2022 order is void, whether the October 8, 2025 dismissal violated due process, and whether the refusal to certify the Bystander’s Report was reversible error.
The case raises broader questions about remote‑appearance rights, interstate custody jurisdiction, and the treatment of disabled litigants in court proceedings — issues that extend far beyond a single family’s ordeal.
As the appeal moves forward, one fact is uncontested: no court in any state has ever held a termination‑of‑parental‑rights hearing for Heather Bendl. Yet for nearly four years, she has been unable to see or speak to her children.