Gaskill wins expanded child visitation rights

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

By Deb Kadin

A River Forest man facing two separate indictments of child sexual assault will get expanded visitation rights with his children, a Cook County circuit court judge ordered Monday.

The order, signed by Judge Noreen Love, will allow Rob Gaskill to immediately start seeing his children more often, his attorney Ellen Domph said. She declined to give details.

Gaskill sat in the Maybrook court, surrounded by a few friends and family, during his latest court appearance. He will return to Maybrook Court on Sept. 30 when motions related to the case will be argued.

The former publishing executive has been on electronic monitoring since March, 2012 when he pled not guilty to charges of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child.

Two women came forward in January 2012, telling River Forest police that Gaskill sexually assaulted them when one was between 12 and 17 years old and the other between the ages of 6 and 9.

Gaskill and his wife, Mary, had operated a foster care service out of their Ashland Avenue home since 1992.

No trial date has been set, Domph said, although matters are moving forward.

Reader Comments

8 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy

Anne from Chicago  

Posted: August 20th, 2013 9:56 PM

Joe, you need to review the definition of hearsay. An accuser giving details of an attack in court is not hearsay, it's direct evidence.

JOhn from Oak Park  

Posted: August 20th, 2013 11:42 AM

Not sure if he's guilty or not and it's not for me to decide. However a child's safety and well being are FAR more important than someone's stupid reputation. Visits fine, but they really should be supervised just in case for their protection.

Barbara from Forest Park  

Posted: August 19th, 2013 10:05 PM

I don't know if Mr. Gaskill is guilty or innocent. I do know that there have been cases where someone has claimed a sexual assault as a vindictive way to retaliate against an adult for a perceived injustice.

joe from south oak park  

Posted: August 19th, 2013 7:40 PM

what evidence is there going to be in this case other than hearsay? Any physical evidence that may have existed was gone long ago and sadly this is ultimately going to come down to a 'he said, she said' and who has the better attorney case.

Mary from Berwyn  

Posted: August 19th, 2013 7:38 PM

I agree with Randy. A man's reputation is at stake. Innocent until proven guilty. He needs time with his kids while awaiting trial. The process is the problem; it's too long and painful.

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: August 19th, 2013 6:09 PM

I don't see how a requirement to have supervised visits violates his rights. An indictment is enough for the proper authorities take measures that the possible crime does not reoccur while waiting for trial.

Randy from Oak Park  

Posted: August 19th, 2013 5:58 PM

I disagree with Mari. It is the courts responsibility to decide these issues based upon the facts of the case which we the public are not fully privy to. If we don't like that setup, we need to change our judges and laws. Until then, Mr. Gaskill has not been convicted of anything. A man's reputation is at stake. He is factually innocent at this point. Until and unless proven guilty in a court of law we need to respect the process and not jump to conclusions.

Mari from Oak Park  

Posted: August 19th, 2013 5:48 PM

I can only hope that, at the very least, the visitations are supervised. Otherwise, this is just another case of our court system failing to protect the most vulnerable among us.

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2017

To view the full print edition of the Wednesday Journal 2017 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.

MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad